The Hands-Off Approach

On the day after Christmas, while many people were cleaning up presents or sleeping off a hangover, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a trip to a shrine. This wasn’t just any religious place, but Yasukuni Shrine, a Shinto place of worship that houses, among others, several Class A war criminals from World War II. Abe’s visits to the shrine have long been condemned by both national and international media as an example of Japan’s historically unrepentant attitude toward the atrocities of World War II.

What makes Abe’s most recent visit unique is the fact that the Ambassador Caroline B. Kennedy ’80, newly appointed U.S. ambassador to Japan, issued a statement condemning the visit, stressing that “the United States is disappointed.” Personally, I agree with the U.S.—and with the 69 percent of Japanese who said Abe should have considered diplomatic relations—that Abe’s decision to visit Yasukuni shrine was rash and insensitive, given the current political climate in East Asia. Unlike Germany, the other major Axis power, Japan has not sincerely made an effort to apologize for its brutality during the war. Despite numerous apologies by the central government over the decades, Japanese politicians have been consistently insensitive to the countries harmed by the Japanese Imperial Army—one of the more recent examples being a Japanese mayor who referred to the wartime rapes of thousands of East Asian women as “necessary.”

But while Abe’s actions were not optimal, the U.S. overstepped its bounds by issuing a reprimand for his conduct. Kennedy’s statement was especially impolitic in tone, treating a head of state as though he were a petulant child.

At the simplest level, Yasukuni is a Shinto shrine, and therefore a place of worship for the Japanese indigenous religion. In addition to the war criminals who receive much of the publicity, the shrine also honors victims of major Japanese conflicts, including Okinawan school children who were killed during evacuation at the end of World War II. Although Abe, as a public figure, should be aware of the consequences of his actions, it is not the responsibility of a foreign nation to dictate which religious observances are acceptable for him to make. Abe was elected democratically, and if the Japanese voting public feels strongly enough about the negative impact his visits will have on their country and their relationships with the rest of East Asia, they have the right and ability to vote his party out of office. If we are to support democracy, we must accept that this ability justly rests in the hands of his constituents alone.

Certainly there are times when a country has a right to condemn the actions of another. A contemporary example would be the international censure of Putin’s government for its recent homophobic policies. The actions of Abe are fundamentally different from the anti-homosexual “propaganda” law that passed through Russia’s parliament this year. The harassment of the Russian LGBT community that followed the passage of the law is detrimental to basic notions of individual autonomy and rights. Whatever the political consequences of Abe’s visit, and however nationalistic Abe’s personal politics may be, the Yasukuni visit itself is has not harmed anyone or infringed upon basic rights.

Despite the way the country handled itself in international affairs during the past century, America is not an international manners police force. The ambassador—and the government, by extension—was presumptuous in her condemnation of Abe. The United States is hardly in a position to condemn the treatment of controversial politicians—just look at the ways in which it treats its own war criminals. Harry S. Truman, the president who deployed the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. The U.S. government under Barack Obama continues drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan with almost no accountability. Given its much more recent history with conflict, America is acting hypocritically.

Some may justify America’s intervention as necessary given its role in East Asia. Currently, Japan relies on American military protection since Japan’s constitution only allows the country’s Self-Defense Forces to be deployed in a peacekeeping capacity. But especially given the resentment that many residents of Okinawa have toward the U.S. military encroachment (not to mention the rape committed by U.S. sailors, or the asbestos), this compromise (of sorts) seems past its expiration date.

A recent New York Times article listed, among other red flags, Abe’s desire for a Japan “complete with a full-fledged military” as an indication of his crippling nationalism. This is rather rich coming from a paper based in a country that has spent over $700 billion on its military in each of the past three years.

A private word of concern regarding the fallout of Abe’s visit would have been a much more appropriate step for Ambassador Kennedy to take. As it stands, Kennedy is perpetuating the American image of smug superiority that makes the country so irritating abroad. While the Japanese public ought to think carefully about the persona it wants to project to nations in the region—in the spirit of democratic thought, the ultimate decisions should be left to the Japanese people.

So the U.S. is “disappointed” with Japan? Well, I’m disappointed with you, America.

Tez M. Clark ’17 is a Crimson editorial writer living in Wigglesworth Hall.