China and Japan: Is Remorse Enough?

Last Wednesday, President Jiang Zemin arrived in Tokyo as the first Chinese head of state to visit Japan. Though the Japanese lavished dinner parties on the Chinese leader and rolled out the red carpet (literally), there was a snag in what should have been six days of photo opportunities: the absence of the simple word "sorry."

In an unsigned statement issued Thursday, Japan expressed a feeling of "acute responsibility" and "deep remorse" for its "invasion" of China and the hardship inflicted on the Chinese people. Although this document represents the first time that Japan has referred to its past military action as an invasion, it specifically did not use the word apology--which, according to The New York Times, many Japanese feel is "more serious" than the word for remorse.

Even though negotiations had started this summer over how Japan would refer to its past, Jiang could not secure a clear-cut written apology for Japan's actions from Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi. Obuchi did verbally express a "heartfelt apology," but the text of the document did not use such wording. Indeed, despite last-minute efforts, the joint statement appeared without signatures, a fact which indicates, at least to foreign policy analysts, that the document's final form was unsatisfactory to the Chinese leader.

It all looked very encouraging before Wednesday. After all, just a month ago, Obuchi had signed a written apology to South Korea for Japanese occupation of the peninsula. Why couldn't China obtain a similar statement for a long list of disturbing Japanese actions beginning with the 1894-95 Sino-Japanese War?

It's unfortunate that a meeting that was supposed to heal the mistrust and anger between two historically unfriendly nations only stirred up more discontent. Though Beijing has not officially commented on the document, many Chinese don't think the statement goes far enough. Almost every Chinese family was affected by the earlier Japanese aggression, and it has been hard to let go of that grief.

Conversely, many Japanese think that Japan has atoned enough for its past, and they resent China's using the historical oppression as leverage in today's political arena. After all, Japan contends, it had already acknowledged responsibility for hurting the Chinese people and "reproached" itself in the 1972 joint communique signed by top leaders.

Though I know the postwar generation of Japanese people is not directly responsible for the suffering of the Chinese people earlier this century, I still believe that the symbolic gesture of a full apology is an important step in cleaning up the bad blood between the Chinese and Japanese peoples.

Even though Japan said that it issued a formal apology to South Korea because it "colonized" Korea but never colonized China, it did invade Manchuria in 1931 and occupy it until 1945. Furthermore, the mass killing and rapes of 20,000 girls and women in Nanjing in 1937 continue to weigh heavy on the minds of Chinese people within national boundaries and abroad. This is a history of violence not easily forgotten.

I confess that, even after all these years, my family still harbors a bit of resentment against the Japanese. When I was younger, my mother gave me a sidelong look as I told her about my new Japanese friend from school. Didn't I know the history of Japanese violence? Hadn't she told me enough times about Nanjing? Grandma would have a heart attack!

Though I didn't let my mother's hesitation stop me from being friends with a girl who was obviously born after all of the terrible murders and rapes occurred, I was still impressed by her deep resentment and bitterness. I know that a strongly-worded apology from the Japanese government would matter immensely to her and my grandparents. Indeed, the anger that my mother feels is very intense--and not unique.

Before the trip, Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan said that "Japan has never completely abandoned its militaristic past in the same way as Germany with the Nazis. If it were to do so, China and other Asian nations would not have to keep reminding Japan of history so often." Tang's statement, drawing a parallel between the terror of Nazi violence and the Japanese violence, effectively evokes the degree of resentment many Chinese feel. How can a people so humiliated be expected to forget about history when Japan has not been confronted head on?

Though Beijing has not since made an official statement, Chinese writers in the diaspora have weighed in on the joint declaration. The Business Times of Singapore, for example, wrote a strong editorial that said, even though "China has, on occasions, appeared intent on capitalizing on Japan's 'war guilt,' the fact is that Japan is on weak moral ground so long as it refuses even to recognize some of its previous wrongs against China."

Even the Japanese themselves knew that the unsigned statement could have gone farther. After all, Obuchi consciously reiterated statements made in 1972, thinking that the issue had already been addressed. Kunihiko Makita, Japan's Consul-General in Hong Kong, knew there would be controversy. The South China Morning News reports that Makita tried to diffuse some of the tension by explaining that, although Japan does have extreme nationalists who "refuse to acknowledge history, if you ask a citizen on Tokyo's streets of his views of Japan's past, I believe he would express remorse and shame."

I am glad that Tokyo has realized that it needs to take responsibility for its past actions, but I wish that the government had taken the next step, even if that meant losing a little face. If the two nations are serious about building a "friendly and cooperative partnership for peace and prosperity," they have to agree to more than a $3.2 billion loan to China and cooperation on certain environmental issues.

Still, I know there is a point at which reopening sore spots of historical grievance gets futile. Japan has made a gesture towards reconciliation, and China should not continue to harp on language forever. I don't think that the possibility for constructive future relations should be sacrificed over the specific word "apology" when Japan does feel sincerely sorry about its past crimes.

Though "remorse" does not make as loud a statement as "apology," it is a first step towards friendship between two peoples who have been suspicious of each other for so long. Jia-Rui Chong '99 is a history and literature concentrator in Kirkland House. Her column appears on alternate Mondays.