Ahead of last week’s 80th anniversary commemorations for the end of the Pacific war, China and South Korea were watching closely how Japan would mark the moment their Asian empire collapsed.
Would Japanese leaders express “regret” or “remorse”? Perhaps a “heartfelt apology”? “Sincere condolences”? Would the government make a statement at all?
The excruciating word games long associated with such anniversaries means that whenever Tokyo has apologised for its wartime conduct, one scholar joked, they un-apologised at the same time.
In the end, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba did not issue a formal statement of apology, as some of his predecessors had, but rather expressed “remorse” in a memorial address on 15 August.
One country, however, that was not tracking the anniversary with much alacrity was Australia.
That wasn’t always the case. After the war, a vengeful Australia joined victorious allies in submitting the names of Japanese leaders that they argued should be tried for war crimes. The British put forward 11 names for trial and the Chinese thirty-three. Australia handed in a list of 61 names, more than any other country. The 11th name on the list, in alphabetical order, was that of Emperor Hirohito. Australia was one of a handful of countries which advocated trying Hirohito as a war criminal, which could have seen him put to death.
Australia and Japan have come a long way since then, and not just because there are few surviving veterans of the war and the memories of it are less vivid. It took many decades of hard work by leaders in both countries who recognised that they had an overwhelming interest in ensuring the politics of the war did not dominate the blossoming bilateral ties. Trade was foundational, starting from the pioneering bilateral deal in 1957 under Robert Menzies, which set the template for locking Australian resources into east Asia’s post-war industrialisation.
Those efforts culminated in an historic address to the Australian Parliament in 2014 by then Japanese Prime Minister, the late Shinzo Abe, which in effect drew a line under the issue. Abe thought Tokyo should not have to keep apologising for the war, which he called “masochistic history”, and resisted pressure from Beijing and Seoul, which had suffered most from Japanese militarism. He believed modern China and South Korea used history to gain diplomatic leverage over Japan. By contrast, he took a strategic decision to settle the issue with countries that he knew were friends.