This essay explains why modern states, once a peace treaty is concluded, must not continue issuing official apologies. By examining Japan’s postwar treaties, it clarifies how peace treaties function to terminate claims, grievances, and demands for apology under international law.

A peace treaty exists precisely to terminate cycles of accusation, grievance, and enforced apology.
States that continue to demand apologies after treaties are not pursuing justice but dismantling the foundations of international order.
Japan concluded legally binding postwar treaties that settled claims fully and finally.
There is no legal, moral, or civilizational obligation for perpetual apology.
To deny this principle is to deny the very logic that allows former enemies to coexist without endless retaliation.
International society must decide whether it values law—or prefers permanent conflict disguised as morality.
2017-04-04
It may be described as a curious coincidence.
Yesterday, the de facto number-one page in Goo’s popular rankings was the Arabic-language version of a paper by 加地伸行 that I released to the world on January 29.
The monthly magazine Seiron, filled with essays that every Japanese citizen ought to read, costs only 840 yen.
Eight months ago, an exceptionally fine series of character critiques titled “Biographies of False Japanese” began.
As I have already written, it was through this series that I read Haruki Murakami’s prose for the first time and was astonished by its immaturity.
The first time I encountered the name Tatsuru Uchida was in the pages of the Asahi Shimbun.
Until August of the year before last, when I still subscribed to AERA, he happened to be serializing something of little significance at the front of the magazine.
This month’s issue contains a superb critique of him, and I had never imagined that he was such a fool.
On reflection, the reason his name caught my attention was twofold: his unusual posture of practicing something like aikido, and his claim to be a disciple of Tadao Umesao.
As for the former, it likely functioned as a kind of hired bodyguard role, allowing the Asahi Shimbun to keep intellectual pressure on so-called cultural figures who are typically desk-bound and physically inept.
As for the latter, I have already written a rebuke as severe as possible, telling him never again to utter the name Tadao Umesao.
All Japanese citizens would do well to purchase this month’s issue and learn the true nature of the man who has assumed the role of the Asahi Shimbun’s hired enforcer, for it is necessary to understand the true nature of so-called scholars.
I present to this fool the opening column from the March issue of WiLL by Osaka University Professor Emeritus Kaji Nobuyuki, whose specialty is the history of Chinese philosophy, which I released to the world on January 29.
[Omitted introduction.]
Before the emergence of the modern state, conflicts between states followed the logic of banditry.
Powerful states invaded weaker ones and plundered their wealth.
The defeated lost territory and were even forced to pay enormous reparations.
What remained was resentment and the desire for revenge someday.
Until quite recently, this was the norm.
The modern state arose from efforts to sever this chain of hatred.
How was this achieved?
Through the wisdom of concluding peace treaties.
The word is written today as “peace,” but in earlier times it was written as “reconciliation,” meaning a restoration of harmony.
In other words, a peace treaty.
Of course, such treaties are accompanied by appropriate reparations.
Each belligerent state may have its own claims and dissatisfactions, but once a peace treaty is concluded, the agreement is that, as states, they will no longer publicly voice grievances or demands for apology regarding the war.
Japan concluded the San Francisco Peace Treaty with the United States and others in 1951.
From that point onward, Japan as a state must not apologize publicly to the United States and others.
Indeed, it must not do so.
After the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan signed equivalent treaties with the Republic of China (Taiwan) and, in 1978, concluded the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the People’s Republic of China, which corresponds to a peace treaty.
From that point onward, Japan as a state must not apologize.
Although not a peace treaty in name, Japan concluded the Japan–Republic of Korea Basic Treaty in 1965, which confirmed that claims between the two states and their nationals were settled completely and finally.
Naturally, thereafter, Japan as a state must not apologize.
Internationalization begins with understanding and practicing rules such as these.
Practicing fragments of foreign languages focused on conversation is secondary.
Most Japanese people fail to understand this point.
As the ancients said: when a gentleman applies the law, it leads to order; when a petty man applies the law, it leads to chaos.