Japan never sincerely embraced pacifism

East Asia is increasingly concerned that Japan is reverting to militarism. Japan's prime minister and Cabinet officials, however, have dismissed such concerns, while some scholars and activists argue that these are exaggerated. What explains this perception gap?

Japan is hyping up nonexistent "threats" to justify its military expansion, leading many to conclude that the postwar "pacifist nation" is now abandoning its pacifist moorings.

But a closer look at historical records, including those of the Tokyo Trials and trials of other Japanese war criminals, raises a fundamental question: Was postwar Japan ever truly a "pacifist nation"?

The notion that Japan completely abandoned its militarism and transformed into a peace-loving state seems like wishful thinking. It's more likely that the country subconsciously retained the underlying features of its prewar system, while continuing to pursue overseas interests and maintain a sense of national superiority.

Consider the way Japan marks Aug 15 as the "end-of-war memorial day". The wording blurs the distinction between victory and defeat and even suggests that Japan voluntarily ended the war. The expression can be traced to Emperor Hirohito's radio broadcast on Aug 15, 1945, in which he sought to obscure the reality of defeat. Few Japanese find anything wrong with this wording.

The Japanese people endured immense suffering in a war fought "to die for the Emperor". Yet, there was no strong public demand to abolish the imperial system. Only a small minority called for the emperor's abdication, and Hirohito's desire to preserve the imperial system was readily fulfilled through the intervention of the United States before the Tokyo Trials began.

Contemporary Japan continues to revere its emperor. The media and ordinary citizens routinely use the honorific "His Majesty the Emperor", unmindful that this superior-subordinate relationship conflicts with democratic principles. After Japan's defeat, the emperor toured the country. Even in Hiroshima, which was devastated by the atomic bombing, he was greeted with cries of "long live His Majesty the Emperor". To this day, large crowds gather at the Imperial Palace every New Year, proudly waving the flag of the sun in homage to the emperor.

Another example of Japan's reluctance to break from the past is the military pension system. Established in the early Meiji period, it was abolished during the Allied occupation but reinstated immediately after the US forces withdrew in 1952. It continues to this day, with higher-ranking officers receiving more generous benefits. Even dependents of Class-A war criminals are eligible for these pensions.

Over seven decades, expenditure under this scheme has reached a staggering 60 trillion yen ($377 billion). But there is hardly any public dissent over the pension system. By contrast, not a single yen of public funds has been allocated to compensate overseas victims of Japanese aggression or victims of air raids in Japan. Even the medical treatment of atomic bomb survivors has often been grudging.

The attitude toward official visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, where the Japanese war criminals are enshrined, is equally revealing. Former prime minister Junichiro Koizumi dismissed criticism from victimized countries as "a matter of sentiment", while conservatives framed it as "interference in internal affairs". Even beyond August, it is also worth considering what the families of the enshrined and crowds of citizens regularly visiting the site to pay homage signifies.

Both Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and her mentor Shinzo Abe have advocated for constitutional revision, particularly changes to Article 9 that renounces war. If "pacifism" was truly ingrained in the public consciousness, how could the Liberal Democratic Party, eager to amend this article, have garnered public support? The attempts to dilute Article 9 saw only a few street protests.

The prewar and postwar periods are too closely intertwined to simply conclude that postwar "pacifism" has changed. The deeper problem is the lack of historical awareness among the public, and a certain tolerance for this ignorance. Had postwar pacifism emerged from a thorough understanding of Japan's wartime aggression and a firm commitment to preventing such history from being repeated, the postwar era might have been different.

Without genuine self-reflection on wartime aggression, the pacifism enshrined in Article 9 is only a simplistic notion that "war is evil". Without consciously breaking from the prewar system, a pacifism rooted in a strong sense of victimhood can easily take hold. This perception is perhaps the most serious issue concerning Japan's pacifism.

The false postwar "pacifism" may have also fueled the rise of right-wing netizens. They glorify Japan's prewar "traditions", look down on neighboring countries, espouse xenophobic views and support constitutional revisions to "protect" Japan's "pacifism". What's more alarming is that even ordinary citizens share these views to varying degrees.

Consider the arguments: Japan waged wars of aggression, but didn't Western powers do the same? Japan invaded China and the Korean Peninsula, but did it not also bring modernization? Given historical disputes, are friendly relations with neighbors not unrealistic? If regional "threats" are building up their military strength, why shouldn't Japan prepare for war? When people who never considered themselves right-wing begin to think this way, Japan faces a real crisis.

Is it too much to imagine a Japan where education fully addresses the country's wartime wrongs, while both the government and the public are committed to fostering peaceful relations with neighboring countries? Such a society would not glorify the prewar system, disparage victim nations, or portray them as "threats".

I sincerely hope that the 81st year since Japan's defeat will be an opportunity for the country to incorporate the perspectives of neighboring countries that suffered from its aggression. Only by confronting the past can a genuinely peaceful future be secured.

The author is an associate researcher at the School of Humanities, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.