论文部分内容阅读
Gao Hong （researcher with the Institute of Japanese Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences）： From posing for photographs in a plane emblazoned with “731，” the number that represents the notorious Japanese chemical and biological warfare research group Unit 731， and shouting “long live the emperor，” a chant commonly used by Japanese soldiers during World War II， to visiting the Yasukuni Shrine， which honors 14 Class-A war criminals， Abe has exhibited his appreciation for Japan’s militaristic past and a hard-line stance on territorial disputes with neighboring countries.
Why has Abe disregarded international and domestic opposition and insisted on paying respects to Class-A war criminals？ Firstly， Abe’s actions are the result of his interaction with his supporters and their inaccurate view of history， which shows that Japanese politics has taken a rightist turn. Since being elected Japan’s prime minister for the second time， Abe has garnered the support of all rightwing elements in Japan by honoring war criminals and trying to revive militarism. The denial of historical facts， especially regarding the Yasukuni Shrine and “comfort women，”and the revision of textbooks in an attempt to glorify Japan’s militaristic past and overturn the judgment of the Tokyo Trials （1946-48） have provided Abe with the appropriate political environment to realize his political ambitions.
Secondly， under the cloak of “patriotism，” Abe is using extreme nationalism to stabilize his administration. Among all forms of nationalism， “territorial nationalism” has the most powerful influence and greatest emotional appeal， especially in a country like Japan， which has relatively scarce natural resources. Japan’s territorial disputes with its neighbors have not only marred its relations with China， the Republic of Korea （ROK） and Russia， but also fueled nationalist sentiments among many Japanese people， who regard China as an enemy， and detest the ROK and Russia. The result： a theory of Yamato superiority in the name of patriotism is coming into being.
Thirdly， Abe wants to use “active pacifism” to change the path of peaceful development that Japan took after World War II. The so-called active pacifism is nothing but an attempt to remove the military restraints on Japan imposed by the pacifist Constitution. It is for the purpose of lifting these restraints and turning Japan into a military power that Abe has been trying to portray China as a threat. Because of these developments， China， the ROK and other countries that once suffered the brutalities of Japanese invasion have to establish regular communication and jointly safeguard the judgment of the international community and maintain peace and stability in the region.
But East Asian countries’ efforts to promote peace and stability are not expected to be reciprocated by Abe-led Japan， because in Abe’s view， history has nothing to do with concepts such as “right and wrong” or “good and evil” and he has argued even aggression has yet to be definitively defined by the academia or the international community.
By deliberately confusing right and wrong， Abe and his supporters aim to make a mess of history to glorify Japan’s past aggression and then modify the pacifist Constitution. Their ultimate aim is to transform Japan into a military superpower. What Abe has been trying to do is not only harmful to East Asian countries， but in the final analysis， it will endanger the entire international community.
Let’s return to the cardinal issue of historical rights and wrongs， because only by squarely facing history can a country chart the right future for itself. Is there a unified standard of “aggression and resistance” in civilized society？ The answer is “yes” for all countries and individuals， except for Abe and his supporters. Without a basic sense of right and wrong， values such as fairness， justice， human rights， freedom and democracy lose their meanings.
If Abe and his government refuse to change their ways， they will indeed cause great harm to East Asia and the world beyond. But in the long run， Abe’s designs will not interrupt the process of China’s peaceful development nor can they stop the world’s advance toward peace and prosperity.
Bu Ping （researcher with the Institute of Modern History at the Chinese A c a d e m y o f Social Sciences）： Despite Abe’s abject denial of the historical truth and evidence， Japan is still liable for its wartime crimes against humanity. Japan’s war crimes are beyond dispute. During the Tokyo Trials， groups of major political and military leaders in Japan were indicted on 55 counts of “crimes against peace，” “conventional war crimes，”and “crimes against humanity.” Among them were Japan’s top leaders， who had plotted and organized crimes against peace and against whom Class-A charges were eventually brought.
After the end of World War II， former Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi was at the forefront of those encouraging revisionism and he even dedicated a headstone to seven war criminals executed after the Tokyo Trials honoring them as “patriots who died for their country.” Coming from the Kishi family， Abe has stepped into his maternal grandfather’s shoes and has now gone even further down the revisionist path， claiming that the Tokyo Trials were merely “victor’s justice” and the Japanese wartime leaders charged with Class-A war crimes are “not war criminals under Japan’s laws.” The truth is that even if Abe acknowledged the verdicts of the Tokyo Trials， it would not be enough， as most of the court battles centered on substantiating the crimes against peace charges， with the crimes against humanity a lower-profile part of the trials.
However， the general definition of crimes against humanity includes murder， extermination， enslavement， deportation and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations， and persecutions on political， racial or religious grounds， whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country where they are perpetrated. Anyone who has a role in planning， organizing， or instigating the aforementioned acts should be held accountable.
In this sense， Japan’s use of forced labor and the coerced recruitment of what it euphemistically calls “comfort women，”namely the women and girls forced into
sexual slavery to serve the Japanese military during World War II， and its use of chemical or biological weapons are all crimes against humanity that were overlooked in postwar trials and should be reexamined today.
The issue of the women forced into sexual slavery by Japan was first raised at the UN by a civilian group in February 1992 and a special rapporteur was tasked with checking the issue. In her 1998 report， the UN’s Special Rapporteur Gay J. McDougall concluded， “The Japanese Government remains liable for grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law， violations that amount in their totality to crimes against humanity. The Japanese Government’s arguments to the contrary， including arguments that seek to attack the underlying humanitarian law prohibition of enslavement and rape， remain as unpersuasive today as they were when they were first raised before the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal more than 50 years ago.”
Despite all the evidence， including firsthand testimonies， and the condemnation of the international community， Abe publicly declared that there was “no evidence” that women had been coerced into sexual slavery when he first became prime minister in 2006. Now， in office for the second time， Abe has said he intends to review the 1993 Kono Statement， which expresses remorse to former “comfort women.”
Abe is certainly not reticent when it comes to showing his revisionist streak， but his worrisome rhetoric denying Japan’s war crimes against humanity and its liabilities， and his relentless efforts to incrementally revise the Constitution and rearm Japan， have dragged Japan into an abyss of disgrace. A real danger to the international community as well as Japan looms large as Abe’s words and acts mirror those of the wartime politicians of militarist Japan. So far this year， Abe has visited India， the Middle East and Africa as part of his diplomatic strategy， but while this may have succeeded in increasing business opportunities for his country， he has not won any sympathy or repaired the damage he has caused to Japan’s image in the international community with his denial-of-the-truth posturing. He never will unless he truly repents.
L i u J i a n g y o n g（Deputy Director of the Institute of Modern International R e l a t i o n s a t Tsinghua University）： Accepting the postwar international order established by the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration and complying with its pacifist Constitution， Japan embarked on the road to peaceful development after surrendering to the Allied Forces in 1945.
Of late， however， Japanese right-wing forces have been trying to remove the military restraints imposed on Japan by its Constitution and change the international order. This rightist political tendency has become more obvious since December 2012， when Abe was sworn in as Japan’s prime minister for the second time.
On July 26， 1945， China， the United States and Great Britain jointly issued the Potsdam Declaration， which was later ratified by the erstwhile Soviet Union， urging Japan to surrender unconditionally. Japanese Emperor Hirohito accepted the declaration on August 14 and Japan surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Forces the next day.
In the document of surrender signed on September 2， 1945， Japan said， “The Japanese emperor， government and their successors will accept the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration.”
The Potsdam Declaration says the forces that misled Japanese people into believing that they would conquer the world must be permanently eliminated and Japanese war criminals punished. And Japan is legally bound to follow the postwar international order that developed from the Potsdam Declaration.
In the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement signed in 1972， the Japanese Government said， “The Japan state deeply feels its responsibilities for the considerable damage caused by the warfare it staged to Chinese people and expresses profound self-reflections over this.”
In a joint statement signed with China in 1998， the Japanese Government accepted that “to face squarely up to the past and look at the history with a correct attitude to serve as an important foundation for SinoJapanese relations.”
But in recent years， many Japanese politicians have violated the country’s solemn commitments. The visits by Abe and other Japanese politicians to the Yasukuni Shrine and their denial of the Tokyo Trials’verdicts against those criminals contravene the Potsdam Declaration and violate Japan’s commitments to the international community. They are also a breach of Japan’s principle to a separation between religion and state. How would the international community have reacted if postwar German leaders denied the validity of the Nuremberg Trials and paid respects to Adolf Hitler？ Certainly， with outrage and disgust.
The Potsdam Declaration is explicit on the territory of postwar Japan. Article 8 of the declaration stipulates that the “terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu， Hokkaido， Kyushu， Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.” The Cairo Declaration， issued jointly by the United States， Great Britain and China on December 1， 1943， says， “Japan shall restore all the territories it has stolen from China， such as Manchuria， Taiwan and the Peng-hu Islands， to China.” The Diaoyu Islands， which Japan has been claiming as its territory， were then a part of Taiwan， which is an integral part of China.
I n t h e 1 9 7 2 Sino-Japanese Joint Statement， China reiterated its stance that Taiwan is an inalienable part of its territory， and Japan said it fully understood the Chinese Government’s stance and would comply with Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration.
In October 1972， Ohira Masayoshi， t h e n J a p a n e s e Foreign Minister and Prime Minister from 1978 to 1980， told his country’s parliament that Japan， bound by the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration， should return the Diaoyu Islands to China， which he emphasized should be an unchangeable position of the Japanese Government.
Article 98 of Japan’s Constitution says the Constitution is the supreme national law and any laws， orders， mandates and related government actions that contravene it will be invalid. It also says that Japan will abide by all the treaties it has signed as well as all the established international laws and regulations. Therefore， according to both international and domestic laws， Japan must return the Diaoyu Islands to China， and all its domestic policies and measures that violate its Constitution should be regarded as null and void.
After the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95， Japan forced the Qing Dynasty （1644-1911） Government to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki， under which it annexed Taiwan and its affiliated islands. After World War II， Japan regained its control over the islands by taking advantage of Taiwan’s separation from the Chinese mainland and the U.S. trusteeship of the Ryukyu Islands， which has been strongly opposed by China. However， China and Japan decided to shelve the Diaoyu Islands dispute in the 1970s in their effort to normalize bilateral relations and sign a friendship treaty.
Today， the Japanese Government recognizes neither the territorial dispute nor the agreement it once reached with China to“shelve the dispute” over the Diaoyu Islands， and thus refuses to hold dialogue with China on the issue.
Former Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda’s government intensified tensions between China and Japan by “nationalizing” some of the Diaoyu Islands. Now， the Abe government is strengthening its defense forces and trying to drag the United States into its confrontation with China.
To put paid to Abe’s designs， the international community should compel Japan to continue complying with the postwar international order established by the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration.
Why has Abe disregarded international and domestic opposition and insisted on paying respects to Class-A war criminals？ Firstly， Abe’s actions are the result of his interaction with his supporters and their inaccurate view of history， which shows that Japanese politics has taken a rightist turn. Since being elected Japan’s prime minister for the second time， Abe has garnered the support of all rightwing elements in Japan by honoring war criminals and trying to revive militarism. The denial of historical facts， especially regarding the Yasukuni Shrine and “comfort women，”and the revision of textbooks in an attempt to glorify Japan’s militaristic past and overturn the judgment of the Tokyo Trials （1946-48） have provided Abe with the appropriate political environment to realize his political ambitions.
Secondly， under the cloak of “patriotism，” Abe is using extreme nationalism to stabilize his administration. Among all forms of nationalism， “territorial nationalism” has the most powerful influence and greatest emotional appeal， especially in a country like Japan， which has relatively scarce natural resources. Japan’s territorial disputes with its neighbors have not only marred its relations with China， the Republic of Korea （ROK） and Russia， but also fueled nationalist sentiments among many Japanese people， who regard China as an enemy， and detest the ROK and Russia. The result： a theory of Yamato superiority in the name of patriotism is coming into being.
Thirdly， Abe wants to use “active pacifism” to change the path of peaceful development that Japan took after World War II. The so-called active pacifism is nothing but an attempt to remove the military restraints on Japan imposed by the pacifist Constitution. It is for the purpose of lifting these restraints and turning Japan into a military power that Abe has been trying to portray China as a threat. Because of these developments， China， the ROK and other countries that once suffered the brutalities of Japanese invasion have to establish regular communication and jointly safeguard the judgment of the international community and maintain peace and stability in the region.
But East Asian countries’ efforts to promote peace and stability are not expected to be reciprocated by Abe-led Japan， because in Abe’s view， history has nothing to do with concepts such as “right and wrong” or “good and evil” and he has argued even aggression has yet to be definitively defined by the academia or the international community.
By deliberately confusing right and wrong， Abe and his supporters aim to make a mess of history to glorify Japan’s past aggression and then modify the pacifist Constitution. Their ultimate aim is to transform Japan into a military superpower. What Abe has been trying to do is not only harmful to East Asian countries， but in the final analysis， it will endanger the entire international community.
Let’s return to the cardinal issue of historical rights and wrongs， because only by squarely facing history can a country chart the right future for itself. Is there a unified standard of “aggression and resistance” in civilized society？ The answer is “yes” for all countries and individuals， except for Abe and his supporters. Without a basic sense of right and wrong， values such as fairness， justice， human rights， freedom and democracy lose their meanings.
If Abe and his government refuse to change their ways， they will indeed cause great harm to East Asia and the world beyond. But in the long run， Abe’s designs will not interrupt the process of China’s peaceful development nor can they stop the world’s advance toward peace and prosperity.
Bu Ping （researcher with the Institute of Modern History at the Chinese A c a d e m y o f Social Sciences）： Despite Abe’s abject denial of the historical truth and evidence， Japan is still liable for its wartime crimes against humanity. Japan’s war crimes are beyond dispute. During the Tokyo Trials， groups of major political and military leaders in Japan were indicted on 55 counts of “crimes against peace，” “conventional war crimes，”and “crimes against humanity.” Among them were Japan’s top leaders， who had plotted and organized crimes against peace and against whom Class-A charges were eventually brought.
After the end of World War II， former Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi was at the forefront of those encouraging revisionism and he even dedicated a headstone to seven war criminals executed after the Tokyo Trials honoring them as “patriots who died for their country.” Coming from the Kishi family， Abe has stepped into his maternal grandfather’s shoes and has now gone even further down the revisionist path， claiming that the Tokyo Trials were merely “victor’s justice” and the Japanese wartime leaders charged with Class-A war crimes are “not war criminals under Japan’s laws.” The truth is that even if Abe acknowledged the verdicts of the Tokyo Trials， it would not be enough， as most of the court battles centered on substantiating the crimes against peace charges， with the crimes against humanity a lower-profile part of the trials.
However， the general definition of crimes against humanity includes murder， extermination， enslavement， deportation and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations， and persecutions on political， racial or religious grounds， whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country where they are perpetrated. Anyone who has a role in planning， organizing， or instigating the aforementioned acts should be held accountable.
In this sense， Japan’s use of forced labor and the coerced recruitment of what it euphemistically calls “comfort women，”namely the women and girls forced into
sexual slavery to serve the Japanese military during World War II， and its use of chemical or biological weapons are all crimes against humanity that were overlooked in postwar trials and should be reexamined today.
The issue of the women forced into sexual slavery by Japan was first raised at the UN by a civilian group in February 1992 and a special rapporteur was tasked with checking the issue. In her 1998 report， the UN’s Special Rapporteur Gay J. McDougall concluded， “The Japanese Government remains liable for grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law， violations that amount in their totality to crimes against humanity. The Japanese Government’s arguments to the contrary， including arguments that seek to attack the underlying humanitarian law prohibition of enslavement and rape， remain as unpersuasive today as they were when they were first raised before the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal more than 50 years ago.”
Despite all the evidence， including firsthand testimonies， and the condemnation of the international community， Abe publicly declared that there was “no evidence” that women had been coerced into sexual slavery when he first became prime minister in 2006. Now， in office for the second time， Abe has said he intends to review the 1993 Kono Statement， which expresses remorse to former “comfort women.”
Abe is certainly not reticent when it comes to showing his revisionist streak， but his worrisome rhetoric denying Japan’s war crimes against humanity and its liabilities， and his relentless efforts to incrementally revise the Constitution and rearm Japan， have dragged Japan into an abyss of disgrace. A real danger to the international community as well as Japan looms large as Abe’s words and acts mirror those of the wartime politicians of militarist Japan. So far this year， Abe has visited India， the Middle East and Africa as part of his diplomatic strategy， but while this may have succeeded in increasing business opportunities for his country， he has not won any sympathy or repaired the damage he has caused to Japan’s image in the international community with his denial-of-the-truth posturing. He never will unless he truly repents.
L i u J i a n g y o n g（Deputy Director of the Institute of Modern International R e l a t i o n s a t Tsinghua University）： Accepting the postwar international order established by the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration and complying with its pacifist Constitution， Japan embarked on the road to peaceful development after surrendering to the Allied Forces in 1945.
Of late， however， Japanese right-wing forces have been trying to remove the military restraints imposed on Japan by its Constitution and change the international order. This rightist political tendency has become more obvious since December 2012， when Abe was sworn in as Japan’s prime minister for the second time.
On July 26， 1945， China， the United States and Great Britain jointly issued the Potsdam Declaration， which was later ratified by the erstwhile Soviet Union， urging Japan to surrender unconditionally. Japanese Emperor Hirohito accepted the declaration on August 14 and Japan surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Forces the next day.
In the document of surrender signed on September 2， 1945， Japan said， “The Japanese emperor， government and their successors will accept the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration.”
The Potsdam Declaration says the forces that misled Japanese people into believing that they would conquer the world must be permanently eliminated and Japanese war criminals punished. And Japan is legally bound to follow the postwar international order that developed from the Potsdam Declaration.
In the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement signed in 1972， the Japanese Government said， “The Japan state deeply feels its responsibilities for the considerable damage caused by the warfare it staged to Chinese people and expresses profound self-reflections over this.”
In a joint statement signed with China in 1998， the Japanese Government accepted that “to face squarely up to the past and look at the history with a correct attitude to serve as an important foundation for SinoJapanese relations.”
But in recent years， many Japanese politicians have violated the country’s solemn commitments. The visits by Abe and other Japanese politicians to the Yasukuni Shrine and their denial of the Tokyo Trials’verdicts against those criminals contravene the Potsdam Declaration and violate Japan’s commitments to the international community. They are also a breach of Japan’s principle to a separation between religion and state. How would the international community have reacted if postwar German leaders denied the validity of the Nuremberg Trials and paid respects to Adolf Hitler？ Certainly， with outrage and disgust.
The Potsdam Declaration is explicit on the territory of postwar Japan. Article 8 of the declaration stipulates that the “terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu， Hokkaido， Kyushu， Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.” The Cairo Declaration， issued jointly by the United States， Great Britain and China on December 1， 1943， says， “Japan shall restore all the territories it has stolen from China， such as Manchuria， Taiwan and the Peng-hu Islands， to China.” The Diaoyu Islands， which Japan has been claiming as its territory， were then a part of Taiwan， which is an integral part of China.
I n t h e 1 9 7 2 Sino-Japanese Joint Statement， China reiterated its stance that Taiwan is an inalienable part of its territory， and Japan said it fully understood the Chinese Government’s stance and would comply with Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration.
In October 1972， Ohira Masayoshi， t h e n J a p a n e s e Foreign Minister and Prime Minister from 1978 to 1980， told his country’s parliament that Japan， bound by the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration， should return the Diaoyu Islands to China， which he emphasized should be an unchangeable position of the Japanese Government.
Article 98 of Japan’s Constitution says the Constitution is the supreme national law and any laws， orders， mandates and related government actions that contravene it will be invalid. It also says that Japan will abide by all the treaties it has signed as well as all the established international laws and regulations. Therefore， according to both international and domestic laws， Japan must return the Diaoyu Islands to China， and all its domestic policies and measures that violate its Constitution should be regarded as null and void.
After the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95， Japan forced the Qing Dynasty （1644-1911） Government to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki， under which it annexed Taiwan and its affiliated islands. After World War II， Japan regained its control over the islands by taking advantage of Taiwan’s separation from the Chinese mainland and the U.S. trusteeship of the Ryukyu Islands， which has been strongly opposed by China. However， China and Japan decided to shelve the Diaoyu Islands dispute in the 1970s in their effort to normalize bilateral relations and sign a friendship treaty.
Today， the Japanese Government recognizes neither the territorial dispute nor the agreement it once reached with China to“shelve the dispute” over the Diaoyu Islands， and thus refuses to hold dialogue with China on the issue.
Former Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda’s government intensified tensions between China and Japan by “nationalizing” some of the Diaoyu Islands. Now， the Abe government is strengthening its defense forces and trying to drag the United States into its confrontation with China.
To put paid to Abe’s designs， the international community should compel Japan to continue complying with the postwar international order established by the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration.