なぜ韓国人は、嫌われるのか？

Financial Times, The wrong memorial 1

COMMENT & ANALYSIS: The wrong memorial: Yukio Hatoyama insists that Junichiro Koizumi should not pay homage to Japan's war dead at the Yasukuni shrine:
Financial Times; Aug 13, 2001
By YUKIO HATOYAMA


No government and no people can fail in its duty to remember those who fought and died for their country. This applies as much to defeated countries as victors.

It is thus a peculiar fact that even now, as we approach the 56th anniversary of the end of the second world war, there is no official place where Japanese people can go to remember those who lost their lives in the combat. It is time for Japan to build a new national memorial, which will allow the government, the people of Japan and the people of the world to remember Japan's war dead.

Junichiro Koizumi, Japan's prime minister, has repeatedly stated his intention to pay homage to Japan's war dead at the Yasukuni shrine on Wednesday, the anniversary of Japan's defeat and the end of the second world war. His thinking may look similar to mine but it is not. Yasukuni is an inappropriate place for him to pay his respects for three reasons.

First, the Japanese constitution prohibits the government from engaging in religious activity. But Yasukuni is a Shinto shrine and it was formerly the centre of State Shintoism, the creed developed and used to justify Japanese wartime militarism. A national cemetery ought to be a place where the government can pay its respects as the government.

Second, Japan's peace-loving citizens cannot pay their respects at the Yasukuni shrine because it was used as a symbol for Japanese militarism and a rallying point for the conduct of war. In addition, some Christians object to the burial of Christian war dead at Yasukuni, on both religious and moral grounds. The South Korean government has also asked for Korean dead to be removed from Yasukuni.

Last, as long as the Yasukuni shrine houses the remains of 14 class-A war criminals it will not be possible for people from other countries to participate in acts of remembrance there. For a Japanese prime minister to pay homage to war criminals who were found guilty of acts of brutality throughout Asia, some of whom bear responsibility for filling the Yasukuni shrine with war dead in the first place, should be seen as an act of profound insensitivity and arrogance towards the victims of Japan's wartime aggression, particularly in China and Korea.

It is simply out of the question to ask citizens of the countries that Japan invaded and colonised to come to the Yasukuni shrine. Yasukuni is not a place of reconciliation.

Mr Koizumi's intention to visit Yasukuni sends the wrong diplomatic signals. It will be taken as condoning Japan's invasion of Asia and as an attempt to blur responsibility for the war. Even putting aside the ethical, religious, legal and historical problems with Yasukuni, such a visit will increase tensions in east Asia, thereby damaging Japan's national interests.

In spite of the substantial effort Mr Koizumi has put into cementing relations with the US, it is striking that he has shown no interest in talking to Japan's neighbours, China and North and South Korea. Mr Koizumi even stated that he would consider how to deal with damaged bilateral relationships only after going to Yasukuni.

His attitude has increased doubts about Japan in Asia and in the wider international community. Nobody wants Japan to be dictated to from outside but, at the same time, a prudent statesman must always think about the diplomatic ramifications of his actions.

Senior LDP politicians are now trying to claim that the problems of the visit would be solved if only Mr Koizumi were to visit on a date other than August 15. But the problems associated with the Yasukuni shrine will not be ameliorated by changing the date of the trip.