|
|
|
|
|
|
Special Report |
LAST UPDATE August 2, 2005
|
|
| site design imagesparkle.com |
| July 8, 2005 |
Overcoming the Past: Germany and Japan’s responsibilities toward its wartime aggressions – German IS team |
|
| |
 |
| Mr. Jäger and Mr. Nakahara (at table) and moderator Mr. Takahashi. |
The year 2005 marks the 60th anniversary of the end of World War Two. A panel discussion featuring the coordinator of the German IS group Mr. Ulrich Jager, Mr. Kazuo Takahashi, professor of foreign policy, and Mr. Daini Nakahara, Peace Boat staff, was held to compare the responsibilities of past wartime aggressions, and the measures taken toward reparation and reconciliation by Germany and Japan in the postwar period. |
site design imagesparkle.com |
 |
| Professor Takahashi is a specialist in international relations with a focus on the Middle East |
“The perception about the end of World War Two is shaped by subjective experience,” stated Mr. Jäger about Germany’s past. The end of the war can be seen as both a day of liberation and a day of defeat. Debate, either at an individual or social level, did not immediately arise after the war. Of greater concern were issues concerning “survival in the midst of ruins” such as reconstruction of infrastructure and the reintegration of German refugees. With the advent of student demonstrations during the 1960s, discussion began in response to challenges against the suppression of truth against war crimes committed under the national socialism of the Nazi government. The German population endured difficulties in the process of reflection. Many people affected by the national socialist regime questioned why they had believed Hitler or participated blindly to what was happening to the Jewish population. Mr. Jäger emphasized that relevant discussions only began 20 to 30 years after the end of the war and still continues to this day. As a result of these discussions, on May 8, 1980 then federal president of Germany, Richard von Weizsäcker, declared the end of the war as a day of liberation. This was an important step for Germany. |
| |
 |
| André, Alex and Mr. Jäger (from left), members of the German IS team, at a lecture |
In contrast, Japan has yet to discuss the war at a national level even though 60 years have since past. “Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945, but it’s merely called the ‘end of the war’, neither a defeat nor liberation,” explained Mr. Nakahara. “There is no consensus among the Japanese people on a national or individual level about this topic,” added Professor Takahashi. Certainly, the hardships and sadness of the war are addressed in the media and school curriculums with topics such as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, “not much has been said or taught in schools or the media about the responsibilities of war.” In Germany, generations of people have now accepted responsibility for the past as a necessary component of current foreign policy. In comparison, postwar diplomacy in Japan seems “one hundred years behind Germany’s.” Mr. Nakahara referred to anti-Japanese movements which have recently flared up in China and the Korean peninsula, two areas once occupied by Japan during the war. “If we cannot face the war properly by compensating and, more importantly, apologizing to the survivors in China and the Korean peninsula, then Japan will constantly be behind in its foreign policy,” cautioned Mr. Nakahara. |
| |
 |
| The German IS team prepare for a workshop |
In response to Professor Takahashi’s questions, “How has the past been memorized and talked about in Germany and Japan?” and “How have they reconciled with neighboring countries?” Mr. Nakahara detailed the relationship between Japan and the Korean peninsula. In order to establish a basic relationship with its neighbor, Japan signed a treaty re-instating diplomatic relations with South Korea in 1965. The treaty, however, was vague in terms of war compensation. Japan provided billions in compensation in the form of increased economic relations and cooperation between the two nations, rather than in the form of funds. There is a similar agreement between China and Japan. Mr. Nakahara argues that this treaty gives Japanese leaders an excuse not to formerly apologize about Japan’s wartime aggressions, since economic relations continue to be intact under these treaties. Germany has formerly apologized to its neighbors for its wartime aggressions, facilitating its relationship with other European nations as part of the European Union (EU). But if a bloc similar to the EU was formed in Asia, Japan’s involvement would be disregarded without a formal apology. Simply, its neighbors such as South Korea and China would fear the potential ascent of Japanese imperialism. Additionally, Professor Takahashi argues that the current tension between Japan, China and South Korea is “something regrettable because an integrated Asian bloc will not happen under such tension”. Without a cohesive Asian community “Asia cannot successfully compete against the United States”. This, he states, is detrimental to the future of East Asia. |
| |
 |
| Esther prepares for Japanese tea ceremony |
Mr. Jäger added by stating Germany’s relationship with France during the postwar period was prone to tension. He acknowledged, however, that “one of the most important reasons for the successful rebuilding of Germany was the economic support from former enemies.” Moreover, Germany did not have to pay reparation to its former enemies (including France, the United Kingdom and the United States). The rebuilding process included dialogues at both individual and state levels between France and Germany, as well as exchange programmes between youth. Incidentally this situation relates to the former West Germany, not the former East Germany. Further, Germany has dispensed over 55 billion Euros between 1950 and 2000 to Israel and the Jewish people as a gesture of reconciliation. In the past, discussions concerning Germany focused on reconciliation at an economic level; current discussions focus on reconciliation at a social level. “People need to have political, economic and social security to be open for reconciliation,” stressed Mr. Jäger. The moderator interjected by explaining that Israel initially refused money from Germany in lieu of its past. Eventually Israel accepted the funds. “Reconciliation is difficult for both the receiver and accepter,” underlined Professor Takahashi. |
| |
 |
| The sensei looks on as Alex prepares the green tea |
Professor Takahashi then asked the panelists to discuss how school curriculums present war in their respective countries. Mr. Jäger reaffirmed the importance of peace education in school curriculums. “Germany’s wartime past is confronted in the curriculum and there is no lack of information about history in schools.” In the last 20 years schools have organized visits to concentration camps, and invited eyewitnesses to speak to students. Members of the gay and lesbian community and other minorities who had to suffer under the national socialist regime of Hitler are also invited to reflect upon their history. Furthermore, reconciliation is an important topic addressed in the curriculum. Conversely, Mr. Nakahara noted “there are only 40 pages about World War Two in Japanese textbooks.” Japan and Germany hold postwar constitutions which vow “never to make war again” yet whereas the German school curriculum teaches peace, the Japanese curriculum prioritizes current national interests over its past. “Next year Japan will delete the terms ‘forced immigration’ and ‘comfort women’ from historical texts,” explained Mr. Nakahara. “But deleting these words would be the same as deleting ‘Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs’ from American history texts.”
|
| |
 |
| Wearing traditional yukatas, some of the German IS pose after the tea ceremony |
The issue of history textbooks is an integral part of Peace Boat’s history. It was started more than 20 years ago by students protesting the invalidity of history textbooks in Japan. They soon began to look beyond the textbooks in order to find peaceful solutions for Japan, Asia and the world. For the two panelists and moderator, the session ended with a pledge to bring awareness about peace education as a tool to overcome the past and learn true history for “the protection of the whole spectrum of human rights and peaceful coexistence”. |
| |
|
|
|
