Yomiuri, Asahi editorial chiefs call for a national memorial

boy in blues SG

Yomiuri, Asahi editorial chiefs call for a national memorial
02/08/2006

Ronza

As rivals, it is not surprising that The Asahi Shimbun and The Yomiuri Shimbun often adopt different editorial viewpoints. Even so, a recent exchange between the heads of the editorial boards of the two major dailies found some common ground, especially regarding Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's controversial visits to Yasukuni Shrine.

The following is the abridged version of a discussion between Yoshibumi Wakamiya, chairman of The Asahi Shimbun's editorial board, and Tsuneo Watanabe, chairman of The Yomiuri Shimbun group, that originally appeared in the February issue of Ronza, the monthly commentary magazine published by The Asahi Shimbun.

* * *

Wakamiya: I was surprised by an editorial that appeared in The Yomiuri Shimbun (on June 4, 2005). It carried the headline, "A national memorial for the war dead should be built immediately."

Although the Yomiuri has long argued for the construction of such a war memorial, I believe it was the first time a Yomiuri editorial had clearly stated "(the prime minister) should not visit Yasukuni Shrine, where 'Class-A war criminals' are memorialized."

From previous editorial stances that said the issue was not one that foreign nations should feel any need to complain about, I had come to believe the Yomiuri was in favor of the Yasukuni visits. So I was very taken aback by that editorial.

Around the time it appeared, you were quoted as saying on various occasions that you opposed Koizumi's Yasukuni visits. You also began arguing that the very existence of Yasukuni was the source of all the problems (concerning the diplomatic rift in Japan's relations with China and South Korea).

Looking at the editorials of the past several years, I had come to feel that the Yomiuri had gone beyond realism and conservatism and moved excessively to the right. I felt there was very little difference between the Yomiuri and the Sankei Shimbun.

For that reason, since I have the opportunity to talk with you directly, I would first like to ask about the true meaning of this change.

Watanabe: Ever since I was in university, I always argued against war. In the last war, several million people died in the name of the emperor. I was drafted and made to work like a slave as a buck private.

Fortunately, I survived, but what was especially cruel was the system that gave birth to kamikaze pilots. That was like a forced suicide bombing.

As the war situation worsened, the pilots were made to fly in planes without sufficient fuel to return to base, forcing them into suicide missions because they could not return.

It escalated further and they began using gliders. Pilots were made to sit in gliders that were attached to planes and released to fly toward their targets. It had reached a situation where the only thing left was suicide bombings. That is an example of the barbaric measures taken.

During the war, I truly felt that no nation should be allowed to do such things. Especially in the name of the emperor (Emperor Hirohito, posthumously known as Emperor Showa).

I still cannot erase the hatred I felt toward the military leaders who gave such orders and to the politicians who overlooked such actions.

In 2001, when Prime Minister Koizumi said he would visit Yasukuni Shrine on Aug. 15, I called him and said "I'm opposed." I told him, "You should not go on Aug. 15. If you have to go, go on Aug. 13. Politically, it would be a bad decision to go on Aug. 15."

After that, I moved to a residence near Yasukuni Shrine. I began taking walks to the shrine. But I still have not prayed at the shrine.

The Yushukan war memorial that stands next to the main hall at Yasukuni is wrong. That facility praises militarism and children who go through that memorial come out saying, "Japan actually won the last war."

This means that Yasukuni Shrine operates a war museum that incites militarism and displays exhibits in praise of militarism.

It is wrong for the prime minister to visit such a place.

I subsequently looked into what the head priest at Yasukuni said about why Class-A war criminals were memorialized there and the difficulty of removing their spirits. I came to the conclusion that it was totally wrong.

That led me to think about the need for a new war memorial.

I talked about such matters at the editorial board of The Yomiuri Shimbun and that is what led to that editorial.

Wakamiya: The Yushukan was rebuilt in 2002. It is quite a fine-looking facility. But the contents in no way could be considered as having a contemporary feel about them.

It is true that the letters left behind by kamikaze pilots do move readers to tears.

But the tone of the exhibits covering not only the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese wars, but also events from the Manchurian Incident to the Pacific War, is a consistent one describing the fighting as an honorable one designed to liberate Asia and for the defense and survival of Japan. There is no sense of shame at all.

There is a Zero fighter on display on the first floor. The explanation says the Zero made its debut over the skies of Chongqing in China. The explanation says that during dogfights over Chongqing, the Zero shot down a large number of the Soviet-made fighters used by the Chinese, thus giving the Zero world renown.

However, after the Zero fighters established Japan's air superiority over Chongqing, bombers flew over the city, killing countless residents.

The reason was that Chiang Kai-shek had set up a provisional Kuomintang government in Chongqing, but those bombings became notorious internationally as the forerunner to indiscriminate bombings.

While displaying such items boastfully at Yasukuni Shrine, it is very rude to also say to China, "You should not criticize the prime minister's visits."

Watanabe: In the past, there was talk of Yasukuni Shrine wanting to place a full-page ad in the Yomiuri. I put a hold on that move. However, before that we had run an ad which opposed Yasukuni. Since we could not only be on one side, we had to run that ad by Yasukuni.

However, our newspaper's argument is very clear. For that reason, we started a campaign in our pages from Aug. 13, 2005, to clarify where the responsibility lies for the last war.

Wakamiya: While it may be just a coincidence, on the same date, The Asahi Shimbun ran a full page story by Kazutoshi Hando explaining the process that led to the war. Therefore, I was very surprised when I saw that the Yomiuri had started a series stating its intention to clarify responsibility for the war.

Watanabe: We will continue the series for a year. After the year is up, we plan to run a story on or around Aug. 15, 2006, listing the level of responsibility for military and government leaders of that time.

Of course, since we are not a judicial organization, we will not hand down death sentences or life imprisonment.

But we plan to set specific standards to decide the severity of moral responsibility and responsibility for the results of the war and in that way say who was the most responsible, who can be forgiven for what happened and who among the group could never be forgiven.

Wakamiya: There has been considerable debate about the legitimacy of the Tokyo war crimes trial. Apart from that, you are planning to have the Japanese themselves clarify the responsibility for the war. Although I believe there will be considerable overlap with those who went on trial as Class-A war criminals at the Tokyo war crimes trial, do you have any idea of how much overlap there will be and are you planning to clarify the responsibility of individuals who may not have been put on trial but had a greater responsibility than determined by the Tokyo war crimes trial?

Watanabe: Looked at from the perspective of international law, since Japan accepted the verdict in Article 11 of the San Francisco peace treaty, the verdict of the Tokyo war crimes trial can be said to be effective in that sense. However, when thinking about moral responsibility for the war, Shigenori Togo, who was foreign minister at the start of the conflict, took action from an early stage to end it. There are doubts as to whether someone like that should be considered in the same vein as Class-A war criminals.

Another thing is that I don't think it's right to stop the Yasukuni visits by the prime minister simply because China and South Korea are opposed.

While it was wrong for the Japanese to have killed people in other countries, millions of Japanese also died. A large number of the people memorialized at Yasukuni were themselves victims. I think a distinction has to be made between those who did the killing and those who were killed.

Once that is done, the level of responsibility of the perpetrators should be called into question. Once that historic examination has been clarified and we state where we believe responsibility lies, we can then address the issue of the kind of trouble that we caused China and South Korea.

A soul-searching on our part that will satisfy them will be absolutely necessary. While the Yomiuri will do what it can, I believe this is something that the nation should do at its own initiative, for example, by setting up a historical examination committee in the Diet.

On the other hand, as a representative of the journalism sector, I feel that we have an obligation at our newspaper to clarify our thinking on the issue. We may, of course, have been a little late in starting this.

Wakamiya: Okinori Kaya, who was finance minister under Prime Minister Hideki Tojo, received a life sentence as a Class-A war criminal. After serving 10 years in prison, he was released on parole and returned to the political arena. He later served as justice minister as well as head of the Japan War-Bereaved Families Association. For those reasons, I considered him a typical right-wing politician.

However, when he was finance minister, he opposed starting the war along with Foreign Minister Togo. He tried different tactics while opposing the military, but in the end he had to abandon his efforts.