This House would visit the Yasukuni Shrine

Every nation should be allowed to honor its war dead how it wishes. Wars are horrifying times and atrocities are almost always committed by all sides. Japan’s actions in its wars, particularly the Second World War were particularly brutal but this should not mean that Japans leaders should be banned from paying their respects to their ancestors who died fighting for their country. Most nations do this in one way or another. The difference is that Yasukuni has those who were convicted criminals enshrined but others also honor those who have committed acts that might be considered criminal. Perhaps the most extreme example is the Mausoleum of Mao Zedong right at the heart of Beijing where there are still big celebrations to mark his birthday – unlike Shintoism in Japan Maoism is still very much part of the ideology of the state.[1]  

[1] Analects, ‘Mao’s birthday Party time, The Economist, 7 June 2013, http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2013/06/maos-birthday

If the Japanese politicians wish to honor their war dead there is another option for them; they could visit the Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery. The Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery houses the remains of the unknown Japanese soldiers who died overseas during the second world war.[1] This is both a broader cemetery in that it honors civilians who died in the war as well as soldiers and narrower as it is only those remains that are unidentified so it does not contain war criminals as Yasukuni does.

[1] ‘Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery’, Ministry of Environment, http://www.env.go.jp/garden/chidorigafuchi/english/

Everyone is entitled to freedom of religion and that applies to the Japanese as much as any other peoples. Yasukuni is a shrine in the Shinto religion – equivalent to a church - and was the center of state Shinto through the first half of the twentieth century.[1]  Refusing to allow Japanese ministers to visit the shrine might therefore be said to be similar to barring British politicians from Westminster Abbey because there is a memorial stone to Oliver Cromwell there and as a result it could be interpreted as offensive to the Irish – Westminister Abbey’s page notably avoids mentioning the Wexford and Drogheda massacres that are remembered by the Irish.[2]

[1] EDITORIAL ‘Lawmakers must respect constitutional separation of religion and state’, The Asahi Shimbun, 13 August 2013, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201308130035

[2] ‘Oliver Cromwell and Family’, Westminster Abbey, http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/oliver-cromwell

If Japanese ministers wish to exercise their freedom of religion then there are plenty of other Shinto shrines that they could visit. Freedom of religion does not mean that politicians should be free to do as they wish knowing that it will insult others. The consequences of attempts to exercise freedom of religion in a volatile situation can be immense; Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount while leader of the opposition was one of the sparks for the Al Aqsa Intifada.[1]

[1] ‘Al Aqsa Intifada timeline’, BBC News, 29 September 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3677206.stm

The vast majority of members of the government when visiting Yasukuni do so only in a private capacity and not as representatives of the government. As private individuals in their own lives anyone should be allowed to visits any such sites they wish. Minister Keiji Furuya argues “Paying homage to the war dead is a purely domestic matter and it’s not for other countries to criticize us or intervene in these matters” and Prime Minister Abe agrees that it should not be a diplomatic issue “As for when I might go to Yasukuni Shrine, or whether I will go or not, I will not say as this should not become a political or diplomatic issue”.[1] That there has been controversy and criticism even when it clearly is a domestic private matter, such as former Republic of China (Taiwan) President Lee Teng-hui visiting the grave of his elder brother in 2007 shows that critics, in this case the People’s Republic of China, are simply interested in finding an opportunity to attack the Japanese government.[2]

[1] Slodkowski, Antoni, ‘Cabinet ministers visit Yasukuni Shrine; Abe sends offering’, Japan Today, 15 August 2013, http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/dozens-of-politicians-expected-to-visit-yasukuni-shrine

[2] Fujioka, Chisa, ‘Taiwan’s Lee visits Tokyo’s Yasukuni war shrine’, Reuters, 7 June 2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/07/us-japan-taiwan-lee-idUSSP1617120070607

If ministers were visiting the shrine as part of their private lives then they should visit anonymously not publically as part of the large events at the shrine. If an individual is going under the glare of the media to take part in a formal event then it is clearly they are not doing so just for their own private and domestic reasons because it is a public event. As a public event then the position of the person in question becomes important. 

Every nation should be allowed to honor its war dead how it wishes. Wars are horrifying times and atrocities are almost always committed by all sides. Japan’s actions in its wars, particularly the Second World War were particularly brutal but this should not mean that Japans leaders should be banned from paying their respects to their ancestors who died fighting for their country. Most nations do this in one way or another. The difference is that Yasukuni has those who were convicted criminals enshrined but others also honor those who have committed acts that might be considered criminal. Perhaps the most extreme example is the Mausoleum of Mao Zedong right at the heart of Beijing where there are still big celebrations to mark his birthday – unlike Shintoism in Japan Maoism is still very much part of the ideology of the state.[1]  

[1] Analects, ‘Mao’s birthday Party time, The Economist, 7 June 2013, http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2013/06/maos-birthday

If the Japanese politicians wish to honor their war dead there is another option for them; they could visit the Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery. The Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery houses the remains of the unknown Japanese soldiers who died overseas during the second world war.[1] This is both a broader cemetery in that it honors civilians who died in the war as well as soldiers and narrower as it is only those remains that are unidentified so it does not contain war criminals as Yasukuni does.

[1] ‘Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery’, Ministry of Environment, http://www.env.go.jp/garden/chidorigafuchi/english/

Everyone is entitled to freedom of religion and that applies to the Japanese as much as any other peoples. Yasukuni is a shrine in the Shinto religion – equivalent to a church - and was the center of state Shinto through the first half of the twentieth century.[1]  Refusing to allow Japanese ministers to visit the shrine might therefore be said to be similar to barring British politicians from Westminster Abbey because there is a memorial stone to Oliver Cromwell there and as a result it could be interpreted as offensive to the Irish – Westminister Abbey’s page notably avoids mentioning the Wexford and Drogheda massacres that are remembered by the Irish.[2]

[1] EDITORIAL ‘Lawmakers must respect constitutional separation of religion and state’, The Asahi Shimbun, 13 August 2013, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201308130035

[2] ‘Oliver Cromwell and Family’, Westminster Abbey, http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/oliver-cromwell

If Japanese ministers wish to exercise their freedom of religion then there are plenty of other Shinto shrines that they could visit. Freedom of religion does not mean that politicians should be free to do as they wish knowing that it will insult others. The consequences of attempts to exercise freedom of religion in a volatile situation can be immense; Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount while leader of the opposition was one of the sparks for the Al Aqsa Intifada.[1]

[1] ‘Al Aqsa Intifada timeline’, BBC News, 29 September 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3677206.stm

The vast majority of members of the government when visiting Yasukuni do so only in a private capacity and not as representatives of the government. As private individuals in their own lives anyone should be allowed to visits any such sites they wish. Minister Keiji Furuya argues “Paying homage to the war dead is a purely domestic matter and it’s not for other countries to criticize us or intervene in these matters” and Prime Minister Abe agrees that it should not be a diplomatic issue “As for when I might go to Yasukuni Shrine, or whether I will go or not, I will not say as this should not become a political or diplomatic issue”.[1] That there has been controversy and criticism even when it clearly is a domestic private matter, such as former Republic of China (Taiwan) President Lee Teng-hui visiting the grave of his elder brother in 2007 shows that critics, in this case the People’s Republic of China, are simply interested in finding an opportunity to attack the Japanese government.[2]

[1] Slodkowski, Antoni, ‘Cabinet ministers visit Yasukuni Shrine; Abe sends offering’, Japan Today, 15 August 2013, http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/dozens-of-politicians-expected-to-visit-yasukuni-shrine

[2] Fujioka, Chisa, ‘Taiwan’s Lee visits Tokyo’s Yasukuni war shrine’, Reuters, 7 June 2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/07/us-japan-taiwan-lee-idUSSP1617120070607

If ministers were visiting the shrine as part of their private lives then they should visit anonymously not publically as part of the large events at the shrine. If an individual is going under the glare of the media to take part in a formal event then it is clearly they are not doing so just for their own private and domestic reasons because it is a public event. As a public event then the position of the person in question becomes important. 

It is wrong to honour war criminals whose actions resulted in the deaths of thousands – or if you count the responsibility for the whole war in East Asia millions – of lives including the lives of Japanese citizens. The results were horrifying criminal acts. If Yasukuni is at all about remembrance then these individuals should not be enshrined and politicians certainly should not visit. Even Emperor Hirohito – Emperor during the Second World War – was opposed to their being enshrined. After the enshrinement of the war criminals in 1978 he stopped visiting the Yasukuni. He is quoted by Imperial Household Agency Grand Steward Tomohiko Tomita in his memoirs “At some point, Class-A criminals became enshrined, including Matsuoka and Shiratori. I heard Tsukuba [the chief priest before the enshrinement] acted cautiously” However he questioned “What’s on the mind of Matsudaira’s son [the chief priest at the time of enshrinement], who is the current head priest? Matsudaira had a strong wish for peace, but the child didn’t know the parent’s heart. That’s why I have not visited the shrine since.”[1]

[1] ‘Hirohito visits to Yasukuni stopped over war criminals’, The Japan Times, 21 July 2006, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2006/07/21/news/hirohito-visits-to-yasukuni-stopped-over-war-criminals/#.Ugz2DZKkrr4

Those going to Yasukuni are not going to honour the class A war criminals but the more than two million others who have given their lives for Japan. It is unfortunate that there are war criminals enshrined in the cemetery but it is wrong to conclude that because they are there those visiting must be visiting the war criminals. 

The visits by senior Japanese politicians to Yasukuni are clearly a major issue in international politics that damages relations between Japan and its neighbours, particularly the People’s Republic of China and the two Koreas. Whenever ministers visit there is a round of recriminations this is often accompanies by cancelling discussions and visits as in april 2013 when South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung Se cancelled his visit.[1] South Korean President Park Geun-hye notes “If [Japan] does not have the courage to face its past and does not take an attitude of taking care of its partners’ pain, it will be difficult to establish trust to proceed toward the future.”[2] Diplomacy is about trust, Yasukuni undermines it.

Even attempts to minimise damage by sending representatives, as done by Prime Minister Abe in August 2013, does not help repair relations with China responding “It does not matter in what form or using what identity Japanese political leaders visit the Yasukuni Shrine, it is an intrinsic attempt to deny and beautify that history of invasion by the Japanese militarists”.[3] The only option is for all ministers to steer clear of the shrine and avoid sending offerings. It is not in Japan’s national interests for them to go.

[1] ‘Seoul cancels summit over Yasukuni visits’, The Japan Times, 23 April 2013, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/04/23/national/seoul-cancels-summit-over-yasukuni-visits/#.Ug4_3ZKkrr4

[2] ‘S. Korea’s Park: Japanese politicians hampering citizens’ efforts to promote trust’, The Asahi Shimbum, 15 August 2013, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/korean_peninsula/AJ201308150089

[3] Mead, Walter Russell, ‘China & Korea Condemn Japan over Shrine Visit’, The American Interest, 15 August 2013, http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/08/15/china-korea-condemn-japan-over-shrine-visit/

The visits to the Yasukuni Shrine are mostly taken by the PR China and the Koreas as an opportunity to complain and bring up old wounds. Simply stopping visiting Yasukuni is not going to solve the fundamental problems in relations between these nations – disputes over Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima and Pinnacle Islands/Senkaku/Diaoyu or provide the demanded apologies over Japan’s World War II conduct which in any case when offered tends to be rejected as not enough.[1]

Ultimately foreign relations between nations do not have to be linked to history; many countries put conflicting pasts behind them. If the other countries of North East Asia wanted good relations with Japan they would simply ignore these visits.

[1] AP, ‘China dismisses Japanese apology for war aggression’, USA Today, 22 April 2005, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-04-22-japan-china_x.htm

Ministers and MPs visiting Yasukuni makes Japan look much more militaristic than it really is. There are two reasons for this. The first is the class A war criminals who should not be honoured as it appears to be honouring their militarism. The second is that Yasukuni itself has an overt political mission that essentially promotes such militarism. In the Yasukuni’s museum the Yashukan Japan’s wars are portrayed as wars of liberation from Western colonialism and fights against bandits and terrorists[1] – exactly the same justifications used in World War II itself. The museum, and its close ties with the shrine, display the unreconstructed view that Japan was the victim of the Second World War not the aggressor. When politicians visit the shrine they are showing their support for this interpretation. This could be solved by making the museum much more balanced; admitting that Japan started the wars they were involved in, information about the massacres such as at Nanjing, and about some of the other horrors perpetrated such as the ‘comfort women’ and unit 731.

[1] Kingston, Jeffrey, ‘It’s time Japan acted to end the war over Yasukuni Shrine’, The Japan Times, 14 August 2013, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/08/14/commentary/its-time-japan-acted-to-end-the-war-over-yasukuni-shrine/#at_pco=tcb-1.0&at_ord=2

It is silly to argue that visiting a shrine makes a country look militaristic. Of course in most cases militaristic symbolism and militarism goes hand in hand but this is not the case here. Japan by its actions is not militaristic and no amount of visits to shrines will make it so. Japan is committed to a pacifistic constitution; Article 9 states “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.”[1] Despite flashpoints with all its neighbours only 25% of the Japanese public want to increase Japan’s defense capabilities – although this is rising.[2] It is notable that he Yashukan itself accepts that its position on the war is a challenge to the mainstream Japanese opinion.[3]

[1] ‘The Constitution of Japan’, Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 3 November 1946, http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html

[2] Hayashi, Yuka, ‘As Tensions Rise, Pacifist Japan Marches Into a Military Revival’, The Wall Street Journal, 18 July 2013, http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-279614/

[3] Yoshida, Takashi, ‘Revising the Past, Complicating the Future: The Yushukan War Museum in Modern Japanese History’, Japan Focus, 2 December 2007, http://www.japanfocus.org/-takashi-yoshida/2594

In most modern democracies there is a strict separation of Church and State. This is the case in Japan just as in the United States of France. The constitution states “No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority” and bans the use of public money on any religious institution.[1] Lawmakers, and in particular cabinet ministers, visiting the Yasukuni shrine break this principle.[2] The constitutionality of visits has been challenged before and was ruled to be in violation of article 20 of the constitution (quoted above) by the Osaka High Court in September 2005.[3] Clearly no state should have senior members of the executive regularly breaking its own constitution.

[1] ‘The Constitution of Japan’, Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, 3 November 1946, http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html

[2] EDITORIAL ‘Lawmakers must respect constitutional separation of religion and state’, The Asahi Shimbun, 13 August 2013, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201308130035

[3] ‘Koizumi’s Yasukuni trips are ruled unconstitutional’, The Japan Times, 1 October 2005, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2005/10/01/national/koizumis-yasukuni-trips-are-ruled-unconstitutional/#.Ug5IG5Kkrr4

The ruling in this case, as in others, was equivocal as it considered the problem to be that the visits by then Prime Minister Koizumi were in an official capacity. Koizumi put his name down as Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi which the court considered made it official.[1] If the visits had been considered to be in a private capacity it would have been ok. Most cabinet ministers when visit emphasize that they go in as private citizens not as state ministers.

[1] ‘Koizumi’s Yasukuni trips are ruled unconstitutional’, The Japan Times, 1 October 2005, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2005/10/01/national/koizumis-yasukuni-trips-are-ruled-unconstitutional/#.Ug5IG5Kkrr4