This essay examines how China and South Korea persistently revive historical accusations to portray Japan as an “eternal sinner.” Drawing on testimonies, Mao Zedong’s remarks, and postwar perspectives on the Tokyo Trials, it argues that present-day hegemonic actions and human rights abuses deserve far greater scrutiny than endlessly recycled narratives of past “aggression.”

2017-05-23
The following is an article originally released to the world on 2016-02-03.
Both China and South Korea appear to be nations that are fond of “rehashing” the past.
China repeatedly brings up the so-called “historical issue” of Japan having launched a “war of aggression,” attempting to portray Japan as an “eternal sinner” in the international community.
This is a quotation from The “Inconvenient Truth” of the Sino-Japanese War by Minoru Kitamura and Siyun Lin, published by PHP Bunko, and anyone who reads this book will clearly understand the broad outline and essential nature of the matter.
I would like to ask those who speak of Japan’s invasion.
“We will arrange a meeting with Chairman Mao.”
Thus informed without warning, Kakuei Tanaka, Masayoshi Ōhira, and Susumu Nikaidō attended the meeting.
Mao Zedong’s famous remark, “Has the quarrel already ended?” dates from this occasion.
Despite the tension, there was an atmosphere resembling cordiality.
Forty years have passed since then, or more precisely, forty-four.
This is a story I heard from a son of one of the three men.
“At a banquet during a visit to China, one of our attendants said, ‘Since you told us that you would not forget those who dug the well, it is something to celebrate that friendly relations have continued to this day,’ whereupon an unexpected reply came from a senior official on the Chinese side.”
Oh?
“We no longer drink well water these days.
We drink mineral water.”
Well then.
Farewell, old coat.
So much for taoguang yanghui.
In other words, does it mean, “We have taken everything we needed from Japan, and now we are a great power”?
A fondness for rehashing.
On another occasion, Mao Zedong said the following to Kōzō Sasaki and others of the Japan Socialist Party, as it was then, during their visit to China.
“If the Imperial Japanese Army had not invaded most of China, the Chinese people would not have been able to unite.
The Imperial Army was a wonderful teacher for us.”
That is hardly surprising.
After the Manchurian Incident, Mao Zedong regarded Japan as an ideal target and relentlessly incited anti-Japanese sentiment.
The legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party’s rule rests solely on the pretense of having achieved victory in the war of resistance against Japan.
It would be inconvenient for them if Japan were not an aggressor.
That is their argument, and perhaps it cannot be helped.
However, on our side as well, there are many who readily echo this by saying, “It was a war of aggression.”
During the process leading to the Joint Statement, Japan said, “We caused you inconvenience,” and that should have been sufficient.
The Chinese side expressed dissatisfaction, saying, “Isn’t that the phrase used when someone splashes water on a woman’s skirt?” but it was explained that in Japanese this expression conveys sincere remorse, and did not the Chinese side ultimately say “understood”?
Both China and South Korea appear to be nations that love to reopen old issues.
At that time, had it not been Tanaka but Nobusuke Kishi, how might things have turned out?
If two men who lived through the same era had faced each other, they might surprisingly have found common ground.
Regarding the Tokyo Trials, Nobusuke Kishi said the following during his lifetime.
“While the Japanese people and His Majesty the Emperor bear responsibility for losing the war, we bear no responsibility toward the United States.
However, victors punish the defeated, and since we lost, there was no choice but to accept whatever laws they used to punish us.
As for our own actions, some may call them a war of aggression, but we must clearly leave for posterity the view that we were driven into a position where we had no choice but to fight, and it was with that mindset that I intended to face that trial.”
(Recollections of Nobusuke Kishi, by Nobusuke Kishi, Kazuo Yaji, and Takashi Itō, Bungeishunjū Gakugei Library.)
Suppression of human rights and freedom of expression.
While it is important to consult many documents and strive to approach historical truth, obtaining testimony from those who lived through the era allows for an even more three-dimensional image of history.
That is the significance of the oral history work advanced by Takashi Itō and others.
I would like to ask once more those who speak of “Japan’s invasion.”
Are not the many hegemonic actions China is undertaking today acts of “invasion”?
The oppression of Tibetans and Uyghurs, the extension of its reach toward the Senkaku Islands and Okinawa, encroachment in the Spratly Islands, and internally, the suppression of human rights and freedom of expression, including abductions so shocking they seem unbelievable in the twenty-first century.
These are nothing less than invasions of the human spirit.
Before echoing the other side’s propaganda and loudly condemning past invasions, should we not instead confront the invasion that exists here and now?