World Views | Asia should focus more on the future than the past

In Europe, the more time that passes from the terrible events of the second world war, the more the rancour diminishes between the warring nations. In north-east Asia, sadly, the opposite appears true. The more the events of 70 years ago recede, the more enmity there is.
Partly, this is because of genuine feelings among Chinese and South Koreans that Japan has never fully repented for the horrors it inflicted. Partly, it is because of a cynical exercise to keep the flames of hatred alive. That is particularly true of China’s Communist party, which uses anti-Japanese sentiment to bolster its own legitimacy. Its constant demands that Japan square up to the past would be more convincing if it were not so wantonly dishonest about its own bloodstained history.
In recent decades, Japan has become locked into an unedifying spectacle of “apology diplomacy”. Its leaders make statements of contrition, which are parsed for evidence of genuine remorse. That is the background against which Shinzo Abe, prime minister, gave a speech to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of the war.
For months, there had been speculation that Mr Abe, known for his revisionist views, would redraw some of the central tenets of previous apologies. In the end, however, he stuck mostly to the script. He used all the key words, including “aggression”, “deep remorse” and “apology”. He explicitly endorsed previous statements in which Japanese prime ministers spelt out Japan’s crimes. True, he did not add his own apology. Moreover, some phrases were couched in overly careful language. He was particularly coy about the “comfort women” forced to become sex slaves by the Imperial Army.
Emperor Akihito, by contrast, issued a more straightforward statement of remorse that Mr Abe would have done well to emulate. The question is what comes next.
Almost inevitably, Beijing and Seoul expressed dissatisfaction. Xinhua, mouthpiece of China’s Communist party, said Mr Abe’s speech was insincere and filled with “linguistic tricks”. Park Geun-hye, South Korea’s president, said it did not live up to her expectations. By previous standards, such criticism was mild. For now both Beijing and Seoul want calmer relations with Tokyo. The danger is that, when it suits their domestic agenda, they will pick again at history’s scab. That is not the way to proceed, particularly when the region faces so many divisive issues, including territorial disputes. Instead, China and South Korea should look to other Asian nations, such as the Philippines, Singapore and Indonesia. They were also victims of Japanese aggression, but they have moved on.
Certainly, Japan has not apologised as unequivocally as Germany. Inexcusably, some of its leaders, including Mr Abe, have visited Yasukuni shrine. Home to the “souls” of some Class-A war criminals, as well as millions of ordinary soldiers, it is an inappropriate place for Japan’s leaders to commemorate their war dead.
Still, Japan should be judged by the country’s actions. Its armed forces have not fired a single bullet at an enemy in 70 years. Pacifism is deeply ingrained.
Mr Abe had some words about the future too. Young generations of Japanese, he said, born decades after the war, should not have to keep apologising for the sins of their forefathers. History, he said, “should be engraved in our hearts”, but should not be continually evoked to browbeat the young who bear no responsibility for those events. Though history’s lessons must never be forgotten, there is a time to draw a line under the past. For the prospects of peace in Asia, that time is now.
MDT/Financial Times exclusive