2017年1月24日火曜日

原発民衆法廷・広島法廷(2012年7月15日)判決文



前回のブログ記事「追悼:ウィーラマントリー判事」の最後の部分で、私は以下のように、ウィーラマントリー判事の反核・反原発の考えから多分に刺激をえたことを記して、ウィーラマントリー判事に感謝の意を表しました。

「原発民衆法廷の広島法廷での決定(=判決文)執筆を担当した私は、ウィーラマントリー判事の核兵器と原発に関するご意見をおおいに参考にさせていただきました。この判決文は、「自滅に向かう原発大国日本 – 原発・核兵器政策による国民殺傷行為をいかに阻止すべきか」①②(『広島ジャーナリスト』18号、19号、2014年)として発表しましたので、ご笑覧いただければ光栄です。」

ブログ読者の複数の方たちからの個人メールで、この記事をブログに載せてもらえないかというありがたいご要望がありました。数年前の拙文ではありますが、お目通しいただき、ご批評いただければたいへんありがたいので、ダウンロードできるようにいたしました。下記アドレスをクリックしていただければダウンロードできるはずです。



「自滅に向かう原発大国日本」①




「自滅に向かう原発大国日本」②



2017年1月18日水曜日

追悼:ウィーラマントリー判事


核兵器と原発の「人道に対する罪」」を訴えた続けた国際判事


2017年1月5日、元国際司法裁判所次長、国際反核法律家協会・会長のクリストファー・ウィーラマントリー判事が90歳で亡くなられました。慎んで哀悼の意を表します。

私がウィーラマントリー判事のことを初めて知ったのは、1996年7月に国際司法裁判所の「核兵器の使用と威嚇の適法性に関する」勧告的意見、すなわち「核兵器の使用と威嚇は一般的には国際法違反であるが、自衛のためには許される」という内容の意見が出されたときでした。この勧告的意見に対し、このとき判事の一人であったウィーラマントリー判事が「核兵器の使用と威嚇はいかなるときでも違法である」という長文の個別意見(=反対意見)を発表され、様々な観点からその違法性を明確に、鋭く指摘されたのを読んで、私はいたく感激しました。私は当時、メルボルン大学政治学部で教えていましたが、1972年から91年まで、ウィーラマントリー判事がメルボルンの別の大学、モナシュ大学法学部の教授であられたことを、恥ずかしながら、そのときは全く知りませんでした。後年、ウィーラマントリー判事と知り合ってから、国際司法裁判所判事を務めておられたときも、まだメルボルンにご自宅があり、しばしばメルボルンに帰っておられたことをお聞きして、そのときお会いしなかったことを残念に思った記憶があります。

私がウィーラマントリー判事と直接お会いしたのは、はっきりいつだったのか憶えていないのですが、おそらく2005年か2006年頃だったかと思います。2000年には国際司法裁判所判事の職を辞され、生まれ故郷のスリランカに戻られ、平和ウィーラマントリー国際平和教育研究センター」の設置に努力されました。私がお会いしたのは、ウィーラマントリー判事がそのセンター設置のための資金集めのために日本を訪問されていたときで、その折、広島にも訪問され、当時まだ市内にあった広島平和研究所の私の研究室にまで足を延ばしていただいたことに本当に光栄に感じました。

ちょうどそのとき、私は、広島の反核平和活動家仲間たちと「原爆投下を裁く国際民衆法廷」の2007年7月開廷を準備していた真っ最中だったので、これは好機と思い、ウィーラマントリー判事にこの民衆法廷の計画をご説明して、「民衆法廷で裁判長を務めていただけませんか」とお願いしてみました。「もちろん、喜んで」という即答をいただけるものとばかり思っていたのですが、実際の反応はきわめて否定的でした。「民衆法廷」の意義について、ウィーラマントリー判事がきわめて懐疑的であることを説明されるのを聞いて、スリランカの最高裁判所判事や国際司法裁判所判事というポストを務められた人には、「民衆法廷」が実定法に及ぼす効果が極めて弱いという思いが強かったのだろうと思います。私たちは、「民衆法廷」の意義を「市民の反核意識と戦争犯罪責任に対する問題意識の高揚」に主たる目的をおいており、実定法に及ぼす効果についてはあまり考えていませんでしたし、今も、この考えに間違いがあるとは私は思っていません。

少し話はそれますが、当時、核兵器使用と威嚇の「違法性」ということを明確に主張する国際法専門家はひじょうに少なく、とりわけ「威嚇」、すなわち「核抑止力」の違法性を主張する国際人道法専門家は稀でしたし、今も、そういう専門家はひじょうに少ないです。その稀な存在の一人が米国のフランシス・ボイル教授で、彼は2002年に The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence(『核抑止力の犯罪性』) という著書を出しています。私は国際法の専門家ではないのですが、戦争犯罪について自分なりに長年勉強してきたため、ニュールンベルグ法を「核抑止力」に当てはめれば、これは「核兵器の使用=人道に対する罪」を犯すことを準備しているという点で、明らかに「平和に対する罪」だという主張をあちこちでしてきましたが、まさに同じことを、もっと詳細に国際法の観点から論述したのがこのボイル教授でした。このボイル教授やウィーラマントリー判事の論述を翻訳して、積極的に日本で紹介される努力をされてきたのが浦田賢治先生で、2012年には、浦田先生ご自身の論考やボイル教授、ウィーラマントリー判事の論考を集めた『核と原発の犯罪性国際法・憲法・刑事法を読み解く』(日本評論社)というすばらしい編著を出されています。実は、ウィーラマントリー判事に「原爆民衆法廷」の裁判長になっていただくことができなかったので、そのあと、ボイル教授に打診しましたが、残念ながら、その時点ですでに2007年のスケジュールが決まっていて、広島には行けないないというお返事でした。

話をウィーラマントリー判事に戻します。2回目にお会いしたのは、2010年5月のニューヨークの国連ビルで開かれたNPT再検討会議のためのNPO会議ででした。その会議の企画の一つとして、ウィーラマントリー判事を含む数人の法律家が、核兵器の使用と威嚇の違法性に関する考えをどのように市民に広げていくか、そのアイデアを述べられるワークショップが持たれました。私もそのワークショップを傍聴し、質問時間に、「核兵器だけではなく、劣化ウラ弾や通常爆弾による市民無差別攻撃も<人道に対する罪>であるので、核兵器であろうと通常爆弾であろうと<無差別爆撃>自体を違法化することが必要なのではないか。それをとりあえず最も早く達成するためには、ジュネーブ協定追議定書を修正して、「追加議定書」の第4部に、「いかなる状況においても、核兵器・ウラン兵器などの放射能兵器、化学・生物兵器、焼夷弾など、市民を危険にさらし環境を破壊する可能性のある全ての大量破壊兵器・無差別殺傷兵器の使用を禁止する」という内容の一条項を追加することではないのだろうか。「いかなる状況においても」という表現を入れる理由は、現行の追加議定書では、軍事目標攻撃の際に、故意でなければ(つまり非意図的であれば)市民に死傷者を出すことが許されているので、これも許さないというように修正すべきだからだと考えるからです。この意見に関して、ウィーラマントリー判事はどのように考えられますか、という内容の質問をさせていただいた。(ちなみに、この私見は、2010年NPT討会議に向けて - 廃絶をめざすヒロシマの会HANWAからの提言 - http://www.e-hanwa.org/announce/2010/81 として発表されました。)

しかし、そのほかにもいろいろと質問が出ていたため、ウィーラマントリー判事が私の質問にお答えになられる前に、私は人に会う約束時間が迫っていたので、会議場を出てしまい、そのお答えを聞き損ねてしまいました。後日メールでお訊ねしようかと思いつつも、質問をしておきながら会議場を途中で離れたことがたいへん失礼だと思い、結局、聞きそこねてしまいました。

その翌年2011年の東日本大震災の3日後の3月14日に、ウィーラマントリー判事からメールをいただきました。その内容は「日本においての原子炉の惨劇 - 世界の環境 担当大臣に向けた公開書簡 -」というもので、反核反原発運動に関わっている世界中の多くの人たちに送られたものでした。 書簡の内容は、原子炉運転と拡散が「将来の世代に対する犯罪」であり、「人道法、国際法、環境法、ならびに国際的な持続可能な発展に関する法のすべての原則に反する」というもので、世界各国の環境担当大臣に即刻原子炉を停止し、代替エネルギー・システムの開発に努力すべきであると呼びかけられたもので、いつものウィーラマントリー判事の明快で感動的な文章で、私も大いに刺激を受けました。ちなみに、ボイル教授も、福島原発事故の直後に、原発産業そのものが「人道に対する罪」であるという、ウィーラマントリー判事と同じような主張を展開されました。このお二人の論考は、すでに紹介した浦田先生の編著の第1部「ヒロシマからフクシマへ」の第1、2章として含まれていますので、ぜひお読みください。
同じ2011年6月に、オランダのハーグにある出版社から出版された、2人の国際人道法学者の私の友人と私の3人での共同編著Beyond Victor's Justice? The Tokyo War Crimes Trial Revisited の出版記念会がハーグで開かれました(日本語版『再論東京裁判何を裁き何を裁かなかったのか』大月書店2013年)。おそらく、ウィーラマントリー判事に出席していただくのは無理だろうとは思いつつ、ただ本の出版をお知らせしたくて、一応、出版記念会への招待状を数ヶ月前に出しておきました。ところがウィーラマントリー判事が出版記念会の会場に実際に顔を出されたのには、私もびっくりしました。奇しくも、ちょうどその出版記念会の数日前にポーランドで国際反核法律家協会の会議が開かれ、会長をされていたウィーラマントリー判事がその会議に出席され、その帰国途中にハーグまで来ていただいたのです。もちろん、ハーグにはウィーラマントリー判事の知人がたくさんおられるので、出版記念会の出席だけが目的で来られたわけではないでしょうが、それでもたいへん光栄に感じました。そのときは、ウィーラマントリー判事は「福島原発事故」の問題ばかりを話題にされ、差し上げた本の内容については全く触れられませんでした(笑)。反原発運動でしっかりやりなさいと叱咤激励をさかんに受けました。とてもお元気そうで、これがお目にかかる最後になるとは、そのときは予想もしていませんでした。

前田朗さんの呼びかけで、2102年2月から「原発民衆法廷」を東京、大阪、郡山、福島、四日市、熊本、札幌などで開き、私も前田さん、鵜飼哲さん、岡野八代さんと一緒に判事団の一員を務めました。同年7月には広島でも法廷を開廷しましたが、そのとき、判事のみなさんと相談して、ウィーラマントリー判事を広島に証言者としてご招待し、講演していただくという案を私が出しました。みなさん賛成されたので、ウィーラマントリー判事に打診のメールを出したのですが、「原爆投下を裁く国際民衆法廷」のときと同じように、良いお応えはいただけませんでした。出席できない理由については、スケジュールが合わないというような簡単な説明だけで、はっきり書かれてはいませんでした。

したがって、ハーグ以来お会いできなかったのは残念ですが、原発民衆法廷の広島法廷での決定(=判決文)執筆を担当した私は、ウィーラマントリー判事の核兵器と原発に関するご意見をおおいに参考にさせていただきました。この判決文は、「自滅に向かう原発大国日本原発・核兵器政策による国民殺傷行為をいかに阻止すべきか」①②(『広島ジャーナリスト』18号、19号、2014年)として発表しましたので、ご笑覧いただければ光栄です。

そのようなわけで、ウィーラマントリー判事との個人的な交流はそれほど深くはありませんでしたが、私は彼の著書や論考からひじょうに多くのことを学ばせていただきましたことを、再度ここに記して、心から感謝を申し上げますと同時に、ご冥福をお祈りいたします。

2017年1月9日月曜日

A Critique of An Open Letter to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe



- Questions addressing the US-Japan conspiracy are essential –

The Open Letter failed to address the issue of the US-Japan Military Alliance
On December 25, 2016, three days before Prime Minster Abe’s visit to Pearl Harbor, a group of 53 scholars and experts including film director Oliver Stone from the US, Japan and a few other nations released “An Open Letter to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe On the Occasion of Your Visit to Pearl Harbor.”  Below is the full text of the letter.

An Open Letter to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe On the Occasion of Your Visit to Pearl Harbor 

December 25, 2016 

Dear Mr. Abe, 
You recently announced plans to visit Pearl Harbor in Hawai’i at the end of December 2016 to “mourn the victims” of the Japanese Navy’s attack on the U.S. naval base on December 8, 1941 (Tokyo Time). 

In fact, Pearl Harbor was not the only place Japan attacked that day. The Japanese Army had attacked the northeastern shore of the Malay Peninsula one hour earlier and would go on to attack several other British and U.S. colonies and bases in the Asia-Pacific region later that day. Japan launched these attacks in order to secure the oil and other resources of Southeast Asia essential to extend its war of aggression against China. 

Since this will be your first official visit to the place where Japan’s war against the United States began, we would like to raise the following questions concerning your previous statements about the war. 

1) You were Deputy Executive Director of the “Diet Members’ League for the 50th Anniversary of the End of War,” which was established at the end of 1994 in order to counter parliamentary efforts to pass a resolution to critically reflect upon Japan’s aggressive war. Its Founding Statement asserts that Japan’s more than two million war-dead gave their lives for “Japan’s self-existence and self-defense, and peace of Asia.” The League’s Campaign Policy statement of April 13, 1995 rejected offering any apology or issuing the no-war pledge included in the parliamentary resolution to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of war. The League’s public statement of June 8, 1995 declared that the majority parties’ resolution draft was unacceptable because it admitted Japan’s “behaviors of aggression” and “colonial rule.” Mr. Abe, do you still hold such views about the war? 

2) In the Diet questioning period of April 23, 2013, you as Prime Minister stated that "the definition of what constitutes 'aggression' has yet to be established in academia or in the international community." Does that mean that you do not recognize Japan’s war against the Allied and Asia-Pacific nations and the preceding war against China as wars of aggression? 

3) You state that you are going to visit Pearl Harbor to “mourn” the 2,400 Americans who perished in the attack. If that is the case, will you also be visiting China, Korea, other Asia-Pacific nations, or the other Allied nations for the purpose of “mourning” war victims in those countries who number in the tens of millions? 

As Prime Minister, you have pressed for Constitutional revision including reinterpretation and revision of Article 9 to allow Japanese Self-Defense Forces to fight anywhere in the world. We ask that you reflect on the signal this sends to nations that suffered at Japan’s hands in the Asia-Pacific War. 

These questions per se seemed to be quite reasonable as they were based on historical facts as well as on Abe’s past public statements and political performance. The ceremony at Pearl Harbor to be conducted by Abe and Obama was scheduled for December 28, 2016. Considering that the ceremony’s main purpose was to re-affirm and reinforce the US-Japan military alliance, it seemed to me that these questions were clearly inappropriate. They completely failed to address the issue at hand. In fact I was one of those who were invited to join the signatory group for this open letter. Having read the draft, I proposed the addition of a few more questions, pointing out that we should draw attention to the fundamental issue of the US-Japan military alliance. This is the parties’ mutual acceptance of their denial of their respective war responsibilities – Japan’s responsibility for numerous war atrocities and US responsibility for the indiscriminate mass killing with atomic bombs. As my proposal was rejected, I declined to join this group action.

The Open Letter failed to assess the political exploitation of the war victims of the Pearl Harbor Attack
The following is my further explanation as to why I found this open letter utterly inappropriate for this occasion.

The questions set out in this letter were simply directed to Abe in person, focusing upon his personal views on various war-related issues. The ceremony, however, was going to be conducted by Abe and Obama together. The aim was to reconfirm and further consolidate the US-Japan military alliance. The intention of the ceremony was apparently to console the spirits of the victims of the Pearl Harbor attack that the Japanese Imperial Forces conducted 75 years ago. I thought, naturally, that we needed to confirm what its fundamental purpose would be. A related and important question would be how we should assess the fact that this ceremony of remembrance was going to be conducted by the Japanese Prime Minister, who utterly denies Japan’s responsibility for the war of aggression, together with the US President, who does not admit his country’s crime and its responsibility for the atomic bombing. The questions in the open letter should have been directed to the fundamental nature of the US-Japan military alliance in relation to these two nations’ respective official memories of the war. But the actual questions in the open letter concerned only Abe’s personal views and ideas on Japanese war issues – questions that would deflect the real issue away from our attention, trivializing the relevant issues as the personal problems of a reckless politician.       

It should be remembered that Abe was not the first post-war Japanese prime minister to visit Pearl Harbor and pay his respects to the American victims. Three of his predecessors also made the visit, but their visits were always in connection with the US-Japan Security Treaty. In 1951 Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru went to Pearl Harbor on the way back from San Francisco after he signed the US-Japan Security Treaty by which the US gained entitlement to maintain indefinitely its military bases on Japanese soil. Five hours after signing the Peace Treaty with former enemy nations, Yoshida was taken to the Six US Army Headquarters at Presidio just north of San Francisco in order to authorize a new agreement with the US government on the continuing US military presence in Japan and allowing the US to continue to directly control Okinawa as before. The aim of Prime Minister Hatoyama Ichiro’s visit in 1956 was to demonstrate Japan’s continuing commitment to the US-Japan Security Treaty and the country’s loyalty to the US. This was despite his visit to Moscow ten days earlier to conclude the Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration on the restoration of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. In 1957 Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke, Abe’s grandfather, visited Pearl Harbor on the way back from Washington D.C. after a meeting with President Eisenhower where the possibility of amending the US-Security Treaty was discussed.
Yoshida Shigeru signing the US-Japan Security Treaty
 
In this way, visits by Japanese Prime Minsters to Pearl Harbor always took place as highly political gestures designed to confirm and reconfirm the US-Japan alliance. The succession of visits by Japanese prime ministers to Pearl Harbor is a typical example of the political exploitation of war victims. Similarly the aim of Abe’s visit to Pearl Harbor was to boost his popularity both in Japan and the US by conducting a ceremony for “peace and reconciliation” and also to reinforce the military alliance with the US. His purpose was to strengthen further his campaign to abolish Article 9 of Japan’s peaceful Constitution and to allow Japanese military forces (still called “self-defense forces”) to conduct military operations side by side with US forces anywhere in the world. Needless to say, the Obama administration supported Abe’s political intentions by accepting his proposal to visit Pearl Harbor.

Thus mere criticism of Abe’s flawed view of the history of the Asia-Pacific War cannot reveal the significance of a political ceremony in which Japan and the US conspired together to exploit the war victims. One of the important questions to be asked should therefore be why none of the successive post-war Japanese prime ministers - including Yoshida, Ishibashi, Kishi and Abe - have ever visited Asian and Pacific nations to mourn victims of the war that Japan conducted and to offer sincere apologies to these nations. Such careful and critical thought and inquiry are totally lacking in the questions set out in the open letter.           

A ceremony in which the US and Japan mutually accept denial of their respective war responsibilities
The memorial ceremony at Pearl Harbor in December 2016 was conducted as a “return salute” in response to Obama’s visit to Hiroshima Peace Park in May of the same year. In his speech in Hiroshima, Obama discussed the atomic bombing with no reference whatsoever to the crime and responsibility of the US. Instead he described the atomic bombing as if it were a natural calamity that had no identified human agency, explaining it thus: “On a bright cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed.” Furthermore, by declaring that “mankind possessed the means to destroy itself,” Obama implied that all mankind was guilty. In my recent essay, ‘US President Obama’s Visit to Hiroshima: a Critical Commentary through the Eyes of Hannah Arendt’, I explained the hidden significance of this ostensibly solemn memorial ceremony conducted near ground zero in Hiroshima in the following way: 
  
Japanese political and military leaders also utilized the deceptive concept of collective guilt immediately after Hirohito officially surrendered to the Allied nations on August 15, 1945. The national doctrine of “National Acknowledgement of Japanese War Guilt” whitewashed the guilt and personal responsibility of many of Japan’s wartime leaders, including Hirohito, the Grand Marshall of the Japanese Imperial Forces – guilt and responsibility for killing and injuring millions of Asians as well as more than three million Japanese. Yet the current Prime Minister of Japan, Abe Shinzo, does not even use this misleading doctrine of collective guilt in order to evade Japan’s national war responsibility. He shamelessly denies the historical facts of numerous war crimes and atrocities that the Japanese committed against Asians, for example, the Nanjing Massacre and the phenomenon of military sex slaves.

Because the US president evaded his national responsibility in Hiroshima for the atomic bombing by laying guilt and responsibility at the feet of all mankind, the US is tacitly resonant with Abe’s denial of Japan’s war responsibility. Obama and Abe stood together in Hiroshima Peace Park. But in reality this scene was a celebration of their mutual acceptance of denial of their respective war responsibilities. Of course this ceremony had also served as another hidden mutual verification - confirmation of the rightness of the US nuclear deterrent strategy and the US-Japan military alliance. *

It is politically deceptive to mourn the war victims without admitting the crimes and responsibility of one’s own nation and to give a false impression of a deep desire for peace for one’s former enemy nation as well as one’s own. This is nothing but an effective method of concealing those very crimes and that responsibility. True reconciliation and peace can only be achieved when victims accept sincere apologies offered by perpetrators for the crimes as well as acknowledgement of responsibility for them. Yet both Obama and Abe, as national leaders, failed to fulfill this duty.

We therefore need to carefully reconsider the fact that one of the aims of both Obama’s visit to Hiroshima - and Abe’s visit to Pearl Harbor – was to be a celebration of their mutual acceptance of denial of their respective war responsibilities, and that this mutual acceptance was the crucial foundation of the US-Japan military alliance.   


The American justification of the atomic bombing and Japan’s acceptance of this justification is the foundation of the US-Japan military alliance
In order to understand this mutual acceptance of denial of their respective war responsibilities, we need to comprehend how the US decided to use the atomic bomb against Japan and how Japan reacted to this serious crime against humanity.

As has been well substantiated by a number of historians, the real aim of the US in employing nuclear bombs against Japan was to demonstrate to the Soviet Union the mass-destructive power of the new weapon. The purpose of this was to discourage the Russians from embarking on war against Japan. As many military leaders in the US forces thought at the time, strategically, to end the Asia-Pacific War, the use of a nuclear weapon was not remotely necessary. Rather than military or other reasons, the real motivation was political. In fact the US Government, led by Harry Truman, plotted to make sure that Japan would not surrender until the new weapon of mass destruction was ready to be used. In order to pursue this aim, Truman made sure that there would be no reference in the Potsdam Declaration to the Allied nations’ plan concerning the future status of Japan’s emperor system – the most crucial issue for the Japanese government.     

On the other hand, Emperor Hirohito and his military and political leaders needlessly wasted time by delaying their surrender to the Allied nations. They wanted to be sure that Japan would receive a guarantee from the Allied powers that its emperor system would be maintained after Japan’s surrender. For this reason, Japan continued to conduct a series of unwinnable battles in the Pacific, most notably in the Philippines and in the Okinawa Prefecture. They forced tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians to sacrifice their lives and also killed many local people. To some extent, these useless and wasteful shenanigans on the part of the Japanese suited the US plan. What really led Japan to make the decision to propose the surrender, which boasted a sole condition – permission to maintain the emperor system – was not the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was the Soviet Union’s entry into the war against Japan, which happened a few hours before the bombing of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.

On August 12, the Japanese government received a response which hinted at an acceptance of Japan’s proposal. Yet, it took until August 14 - two more days - for Hirohito and his cronies to finally accept the Potsdam Declaration. In the meantime, almost every day until August 14 after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US forces continued fire-bombing many other Japanese cities. The target of one of the last conventional bombings on August 14 was Osaka, in which 700 one-ton bombs were dropped from 150 B-29 bomber planes. The result was the death of more than 800 civilians, just a matter of hours before the official end of the war.

It is clear therefore that, in the real historical sense, the US and Japan share combined responsibility for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – the US for plotting to ensure that Japan did not surrender until the bomb was ready; and Japan for unwisely inducing the atomic bombing by delaying the capitulation. Yet the US created a myth that the atomic bombing was necessary in order to end the long-lasting bloody war in the Asia-Pacific. Its aim was to cover up its grave war crime of the unnecessary killing of over 210,000 people, mostly civilians, including 40,000 Koreans. On the other hand, Hirohito stated in his Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War that his government had decided to surrender because of the loss of life brought by the atomic bombs. Hirohito deceptively singled out the atomic bombings, and not the Soviet Union’s entry to the war against Japan, as the decisive factor in the decision to surrender.

Hirohito was thus able to completely ignore the war crimes committed by the Japanese military across Asia and the Pacific, as well as the anti-Japanese resistance that was taking place throughout Asia. In addition, he exploited the A-bomb’s damage to indirectly justify the war as a “war to liberate Asia.” In this way, the atomic bombings became a means to conceal not only the responsibility for the war of Hirohito himself and other wartime leaders, but also the legal and moral responsibilities of the Japanese people for a war conducted in the name of the Japanese empire. This war took tens of millions of lives throughout the Asia-Pacific. Just as President Truman fabricated a myth to cover up the US government’s responsibility for its serious war crimes, so too did the Japanese government use the same A-Bomb attacks to conceal its own war responsibilities.  

In this way, both the US and Japan exploited the tremendous destructive and lethal power of the atom bomb for their respective political justifications for ending the war. Moreover, they tacitly accepted each other’s justifications. In other words, the post war era for Japan and the US commenced on a base of US and Japanese mutual acceptance of denial of their respective war responsibilities.
       
The US-Japan Security Treaty was also based firmly upon this mutual acceptance of these denials. Japan for its part, with this treaty, officially accepted the American myth that justified indiscriminate mass killing with nuclear weapons. Since then Japan has strongly supported and still supports US nuclear strategies, to the extent that the Japanese government now repeatedly requests the US government to maintain its strategy of nuclear deterrence. In parallel with this policy, Japan built its own nuclear energy facilities throughout the nation and still shows no sign of terminating its commitment to the use of nuclear power - despite the horrendous accident five years ago at Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Station.

On the other hand, immediately after the war, the US decided to use Hirohito’s status as emperor to achieve smooth control of the Japanese nation under US occupation forces. Accordingly, the US decided not to question Hirohito’s crime of and responsibility for the war of aggression. In corroboration with the Japanese government, the US created a myth that, despite his pacifist beliefs, Hirohito’s prestige had been politically exploited by a small group of warmongers during the war. Such treatment of Hirohito by the US was, of course, closely related to the fact that, as a token gesture, only a small number of Japanese military and political leaders were tried at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. Even after Japan’s independence was restored in 1951, the Japanese emperor system was continuously exploited under the US-Japan Security Treaty, and is still manipulated for the benefit of both Japanese and US political and military co-operation.

Because of this US-Japan conspiracy, the majority of Japanese not only failed to form a clear idea of their nation’s war responsibility but also came to see themselves as the victims of war rather than as perpetrators. As a nation Japan still does not openly recognize the criminality of the many brutal acts it committed against other Asian peoples or its own responsibility for those acts. As a result, it cannot expose the significance of similar crimes that the United States perpetrated against the Japanese people. Many people in Japan are caught in a vicious cycle. Precisely because they do not thoroughly interrogate the criminality of the brutal acts the US committed against them or pursue US responsibility for those acts, they are incapable of considering the pain suffered by the Asian victims of their own crimes or the gravity of their responsibility for them. This mentality can be called a “sense of war victimhood without identifying victimizers.” It is the reason why Japan has willingly subordinated itself to US military control, although it has never been trusted by neighboring Asian nations and cannot establish a peaceful relationship with them.

In other words, the popular Japanese historical view based on a “sense of war victimhood without identifying victimizers” is the product of the US-Japan conspiracy, and not the creation of Japan itself. We therefore need to “work through the past” with its double meanings – i.e. the intertwined complex of Japan’s past and America’s past.

Unfortunately, the open letter to Abe completely lacks this perspective - the viewpoint of the US-Japan conspiracy. In this sense, as mentioned earlier, to simply question Abe’s deficient personal view of the history of the Asia-Pacific War is quite inadequate and pointless.

Questions addressing the US-Japan conspiracy are essential
Many Japanese people, in particular high-class militarists, politicians and bureaucrats, who psychologically subjugated themselves almost like slaves to the emperor system before and during the war, quickly submitted to the rule of the US, which brought them “freedom and democracy.” They did so without questioning the real nature of “freedom and democracy,” underpinned as it was by the great destructive power of nuclear and other lethal weapons. They happily acquiesced to “the new society” that the US provided - democracy based upon constitutional monarchy. This is one of the fundamental ideologies of the official historical view of the Asia-Pacific War, based as it is on a “sense of war victimhood without identifying victimizers.” The preconditions for acceptance of this new society were an acceptance in turn of the American justification of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as Hirohito’s immunity from responsibility for the war. One prominent post-war politician who acceded to this scheme of delusion was Kishi Nobusuke, grandfather of the current Prime Minister Abe Shinzo.

Indeed, Kishi himself was a product of the US-Japan conspiracy. In October 1936, Kishi took up the position of head of the Department of Industry of the State Council of Manchuko - Japan’s puppet state. In March 1939 he became the deputy director of the Office of General Affairs and effectively seized the power to control the entire economy and industry of Manchuko. While working in Manchuko, Kishi closely corroborated with the leaders of the Kwantung Army, in particular the staff officers, and contributed to the formulation of the five-year industrial development plan. This formed part of the preparations for war in China. By developing various kinds of military manufacturing there, this was a plan to make Manchuko a vital strategic base for the Japanese Imperial Army.

One of the reasons that Kishi was arrested and charged as an A-class war criminal suspect shortly after the war was his role in preparing for the war of aggression. It is said that Kishi secretly raised a huge sum by utilizing his power in Manchuko, and furtively gave financial support to many powerful militarists and politicians including General Tojyo Hideki. In October 1941 he was appointed Minister for Commerce and Industry of the newly sworn Tojyo Cabinet. In November 1943, when Prime Minister Tojyo established the Ministry for War Industry - and concurrently served as its Minister - Kishi continued to work for Tojyo both as Deputy Minister for this new government organization and as a minister of state. In the Tojyo cabinet, he was the key person in the rapid restructure of Japan’s economy and industry that enabled Japan’s massive war effort.

It was therefore not surprising that, soon after the war, Kishi was charged as an A-class war criminal suspect. Yet, at the end of 1948, the US adopted a new policy making Japan the vanguard in northeast Asia against the rapidly expanding communist bloc. Kishi together with many other prominent war crime suspects was acquitted and discharged. Furthermore, when he officially returned to politics in 1952 and became Japan’s prime minister in 1957, he received strong support from the US government. His younger brother Sato Eisaku, who served as his government’s Minister of Finance, secretly asked the US government for “financial support to fight against communists.” The US government responded to this request by providing support from the CIA’s fund for covert operations. Later, in 1964, Sato also became prime minister and held that position until 1972. As is now well known, both Kishi and Sato as prime minister made secret agreements with the US government to allow US forces to bring their nuclear weapons to Japan without informing Japanese authorities. If this is not a US-Japan conspiracy, what else can it be called?

An open letter should have been addressed to both Abe and Obama, asking questions concerning both Japanese and American responsibility for this US-Japan conspiracy. For example, the following questions to Obama would have been ideal:

* Mr. Kishi Nobusuke, the current Prime Minister’s grandfather, was arrested as an A-class war crime suspect shortly after the war because of his wartime contribution to preparation for the war of aggression. Yet at the end of 1948, along with the new US policy to appoint Japan as the vanguard in northeast Asia against the rapidly expanding communist bloc, Kishi was acquitted and discharged. As President of the United States, how do you assess this fact?

* While he was Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Sato Eisaku, Mr. Abe’s great-uncle, introduced a policy called “Three Non-nuclear Principles.” This prohibited production and possession of nuclear weapons in Japanese territory, and prohibited also their entry to Japan. On the strength of his anti-nuclear policy, he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1974. But later it was revealed that he had made a secret agreement with the Nixon administration to allow US forces to bring nuclear weapons into Okinawa. As a US president who also received the Nobel Peace Prize because of your anti-nuclear stance, what do you think of this hypocrisy?

* The Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Abe, claims that Japanese forces did not commit atrocities against Asians and Allied POWs. He utterly denies Japan’s responsibility for the war of aggression. Similarly in Hiroshima in May 2016 you, as the US president, did not admit responsibility for the crime of indiscriminately killing over 210,000 people by means of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - mostly civilians, including 40,000 Koreans. You visited Vietnam shortly before going to Hiroshima. There too you refused to discuss American responsibility for the intense and indiscriminate bombings, including the use of agent orange, that the US forces conducted during the Vietnam War. Because of your past performance, we think that you and Mr. Abe share the same problem of moral deficiency. How do you respond to this criticism?

* At present, people in Okinawa and Iwakuni, where large US military bases are located, live in deep fear of accidents involving US military planes such as Osprey and other types of jet fighter. They are also extremely concerned about the effects on their communities and environment of the building of the new US military base at Henoko in Okinawa and expansion of the Iwakuni base in Yamaguchi. Out of this serious concern many people, including the Governor of Okinawa Prefecture Mr. Onaga Takeshi, are currently vigorously involved in a civil campaign against US military activities in these regions. Yet the Abe administration is trying to quash these people’s voices using heavy-handed measures. As the Supreme Commander of the US forces, how do you feel about the serious concerns of these Japanese people?

Conclusion

In May 2015 I was also invited to join the signatory group of an open letter to Abe Shinzo that criticized his handling of the so-called “comfort women issue” (i.e., Japan’s military sex slaves), which was initiated by some American Japanologists. At that time, too, I pointed out that Japan’s lack of a sense of its own war responsibility was closely intertwined with the American justification for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I proposed to amend the content of the letter so that Americans would also think about their own war responsibility in conjunction with the “comfort women” issue. But my proposal was rejected. Through these repeated experiences I learned that, like many Japanese, American scholars and citizens are also required to “work through their own past,” the process that Theodor Adorno clearly advocated in his 1959 public lecture, Was bedeutet: Aufarbeitung der Vergangenheit (The Meaning of Working Through the Past).

To conclude my critique of “An Open Letter to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe On the Occasion of Your Visit to Pearl Harbor,” allow me to quote Adorno’s words from this lecture.

Above all enlightenment about what has happened must work against a forgetfulness that all too easily turns up together with the justification of what has been forgotten.  …….
A working through of the past understood as enlightenment is essentially such a turn toward the subject, the reinforcement of a person’s self-consciousness and hence also of one self. This should be combined with the knowledge of the few durable propaganda tricks that are attuned exactly to those psychological dispositions we must assume are present in human beings (emphasis added).

- End –
Yuki Tanaka

* ‘U.S. President Obama’s Visit to Hiroshima: a Critical Commentary through the Eyes of Hannah Arendt’