Intervening Independent History Discussion

The Committee for Twenty-first Century Initiative is a meeting of experts to discuss the ingredients of seventieth anniversary statement by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe this summer. A news reports revealed that Abe had been intervening to the committee to make its final report preferable to him. Pretending to be acknowledging public voices to his controversial political agenda, Abe has been deceiving the nation by fabricating conclusion of the committee.

Abe has been looking into the draft of committee’s report and sent his opinion to the committee through his staffs. He required revision of trivial expressions of the report. “It was like castigation,” one of the committee members revealed.

In the discussion at the committee, most members supported to include “colonial rule and aggression” in the statement by Prime Minister Tomi-ichi Murayama in 1995. The draft was actually made along with that notion. But, Abe was not satisfied with it. “While there was an negative aspect in Japan’s colonial rule, wasn’t there a positive aspect in it?” Abe questioned the argument. Although Abe wants to include both positive and negative aspect of Japan’s aggression, the committee replied that the history could not be glorified.

On the expression of “democratization” in the relation with China or Taiwan, Abe argued that China was not democratized and required to reconsider it. He also demanded to delete some sentences that were not preferable to him. “Although there were some points in which he was correct, Abe doubted every single word in a manner a prime minister would not do,” told one who is related to the committee.

The committee has broadly been discussing detailed expression in the seventieth anniversary statement. Its report is going to refer to “colonial rule and aggression” and “deep remorse,” but not expressing “heartfelt apology.” Abe is still reluctant to apologize to the victims in Asian nations and rejecting to admit that the war policy was mistaken by Imperial Japan. There is a minor difference over Japan’s aggression between Abe and the committee.

Under consistent historical revisionism of top leader, the discussion over the statement is not converging into how Japan is rebuilding the relationship with Asian nations, but how to go through this event in a face-saving way for the domestic conservatives. The committee is no longer a consultative organization of Abe, but a group of servants for Abe dynasty.