Japan’s War Aims and Racism
ARAI Shin-ichi
Presentation
at
Canadian Conference on Preventing Crimes Against Humanity:
Lessons
from the Asia Pacific War (1931-1945)
March 21-22, 2003, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
(日本の戦争目的と人種主義 - 荒井信一 )
I
Once Yoshimi Yoshiaki, a Japanese historian, rightly pointed
out that a higher proportion of women who served as sex slaves during World War
II were rounded up from former colonies and sent to the front lines. "At
any rate，ethnic
discrimination was at the root of the act of making women from the colonies
into comfort women, which amounted to their enslavement." By stating this he revealed that there had
been discrimination against other nations and racism among Japanese at the
bottom of the sexual slavery issues.(1)
Also at the root of atrocious acts perpetrated by Japanese
soldiers in Nanking and the rest of China was the contemptuous attitude of
Japanese officers and the rank and file toward Chinese. The military authority
at the time explicitly admitted that "generally speaking Japanese soldier’s behavior
and attitude toward Chinese peoples have ａ tendency to be excessively arrogant and to contemptuously and needlessly exploit
them."(2) Kasahara Tokushi,
an author of many research papers on the Nanking Massacre,
explains the historical and social factors of the Japanese military's atrocious
conducts: "There were the contemptuous attitudes among both soldiers and
civilians in Japan toward Asians including Chinese people, sexist
discrimination toward women, the lack of respect for human rights in the
Japanese military system and the inhuman characteristic of the Emperor's army
and navy."(3)
All the factors mentioned by Kasahara
are deep-rooted in the modern history of Japan. We need, therefore, detailed historical
studies of these factors. Due to time constraint, my presentation will only
touch on the issue of Japan's War Aims which made the above
mentioned factors to come to the surface. I understand that the term " war aims" implies the ideology of war, i.e., the
goals and objectives of war as proclaimed by the Japanese government and
military leaders in order to justify the war of aggression, rather than the objective aims of the war of aggression as it actually happened.
When the Sino-Japanese war broke out in 1937, the only war
aims publicized by the Japanese government were: "To punish rude acts of
Chinese military and to press the Chinese Government for reflection."（Statement of Japanese Government，August 15, 1937）Japan went into a full scale war on
the pretext of such simplistic reasoning. It illustrates that the government
did not have any persuasive war aims for the Japanese people. As is well known, the Japanese government at
the time called the war an 'incident'. More importantly, it circulated a notice
to dispatched troops at the front which stated:.
"In the present situation…the empire will neither apply，nor act in accordance with，all the concrete articles of the
Treaty Concerning the Laws and Regulations of Belligerency."
(Directive of Vice-Minister of Army，August 5, 1937) From such a directive we can see why
facilities for incarcerating Prisoners of War as stipulated in international
law were not set up, and why so frequently Japanese soldiers murdered POWs.
After examining letters, diaries and other notes drafted by
frontline soldiers, Hujii Tadatoshi
argues that the lack of persuasive or acceptable war aims was directly related
to the idea of "annihilation."
As Hujii explains, a fictitious notion was
promoted among common soldiers as a result of the source of legitimacy (war
aims) being sought in the Emperor's army. They came to believe that those
against the Emperor's wishes had to be regarded as rebels and the war for
crushing and defeating rebels was a "holy war." The notion of
"holy war" was combined with the disregard of international law.
These attitudes were reinforced by the persistent sense of discrimination and
contempt towards Chinese people. It can be said that these factors did drive
soldiers to commit "crimes against humanity." (4)
II
A major issue of the Asian theatre of World War II
was the validity or appropriateness of "colonialism." During the negotiations shortly prior to the
outbreak of the Pacific stage of WWII the U.S. government insisted on the
evacuation of the Japanese army from China. At that time Prime Minister Tojo explained why the U.S. demand had to be rejected: “If
evacuated，the
situations of China will worsen more than ever and it’s influence will jeopardize Japanese
colonial rule over Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan．”（November ５，1941）
The Emperor explained the reason for the declaration
of war in his imperial rescript as JISON
JIEI (literally, 'self-existence and self-defense'). It was an expressed
determination for maintaining the colonial empire in order to establish a solid
basis for the nation's 'preservation and security.' Obviously Japan was on the side of favouring colonialism. After the beginning of the war, Japan vigorously propagated the
establishment of DAITOA KYOEIKEN（Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere）:
Japan made a case that under the
leadership of the Japanese Empire nations in Asia should be liberated from the
Euro-American imperialist domination.
Japan's real intention was barely
disguised: Under this slogan Japan was emphasizing its anti-British
and anti-American stance thereby trying to appeal to nationalist trends among
peoples in South
East Asia,
to recruit their co-operation for its occupation and to achieve a monopoly for
the exploitation of resources in their land. 19 days prior to
the declaration of war the Japanese government and military jointly adopted
guidelines for the military administration of occupied territories in the
South. They put a priority on the usurpation of resources in the area. The local people "have to endure" the resulting burden
for their lives. Further, the movements for independence had to be
controlled and suppressed. "It is necessary to inculcate the feeling of
respect for the imperial army in the mind of native peoples."
As we can see, the ideal of DAITOA KYOEIKEN as Japan's War Aims was an aspiration for
superiority of the Japanese people and their dominance - an expression of
racism based on contempt and discrimination against peoples in Asia. In particular, Japan's treatment of the POWs conspicuously
illustrates such characteristics of Japan's war aims.(5)
Preceding to the Pacific War, the imperial rescripts for the declaration of war always included an
expression urging the subjects to observe international law. However, the
Emperor did not mention this point in his rescript at
the time of the declaration of the Pacific War. In January 1942, Togo
Shigenori, the Minister of External Affairs, notified the Allied Powers that Japan would respect the spirit of the Red
Cross Convention and the 1929 Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of
Prisoners of War. In spite of that, in July 1942, Tojo,
the Minister of Army (the portfolio the Prime Minister held concurrently),
spoke at a briefing of the commanding directors of POW camps and requested a different
treatment of POWs from the conventional ways prescribed by international law:
"In Japan，we have
our own ideology concerning POWs，which should naturally make their treatment more or less different from that in Europe and America…you must not allow the
prisoners to lie idle doing nothing but eating freely for even a single day．You must do your best to utilize their powers and skills to expand necessary production for waging the Greater East Asian war." During the war the Japanese military captured
and held ca. 350,000 allied POWs in total. Among them, there were ca. 200,000
"white POWs" who experienced treatment disrespectful to international
law by forcing them to labor for the expansion of industrial productions and
other military purposes. Such measures taken by the Japanese military were one
of the factors contributing to a high death rate of POWs and the serious trauma
suffered by the survivors.
The treatment of POWs by the Japanese military was
conspicuously racist. Tojo, the Minister of Army,
stated in April 1942: "We will construct POWs camp not only in the South but also on the Japanese mainland，Taiwan，Korea，Manchuria and China．Its aim is to induce the peoples of East Asia to place their confidence on Japan．They have felt themselves to be
inferior to the Caucasians for a long time."
The racist element of the treatment of POWs was more plainly
expressed by Itagaki Seishiro,
the Commander-in-Chief of Korean Army in his "Internment Program for
Korean POWs": "It is our purpose by interning American and British prisoner of war in Korea，to make the Koreans realize positively the true might of our Empire as well as to contribute to psychological propaganda work for stamping out any ideas of Europe and America which
most Koreans are still keeping in their minds."
The Japanese Military preferred to assign Koreans and
Taiwanese, peoples from colonies, to perform lower-level duties such as guards
in newly set-up POW camps: "In order to makeａgood influence on colonial rule，we intend to induce these peoples to be conscious that it is a distinct honor for them to participate in the construction of the Greater East Asia as ａmember of the Imperial Army and a loyal subject of the Emperor." (6)
As we can see, the policy of inhumane treatment of POWs by Japan was inseparably linked with Japan's racist-colonialism. In other
words, the policy was a symbolic expression of the racist characteristics of DAITOA KYOEIKEN or Japan's war aims.
III
In August 1941, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill met and issued a joint declaration
which is know as the "Atlantic
Charter." It then developed into
Allies' war aims. One of the principles proclaimed in the Charter was
"self-determination of nations." However, when Prime Minister
Churchill went home and was questioned in September at the House of Commons, he
stated that India and Burma would be exempted from the
application of the Charter principles. It illustrates that colonialism was
tolerated among allied nations as well.
The 1951 Peace Conference in San Francisco presented a good opportunity to
resolve the issues deriving from colonialism. However, the Peace Treaty was
anomalous, as only one side of the Allies were present as signatory states and
parties such as China, the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea were not allowed to participate.
Recently it is revealed that at first, the Allies
took the participation of the Republic of Korea as a signatory state for granted.
However, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru successfully blocked it.
Yoshida argued that "the majority of Koreans in Japan are communists and they do not
deserve the benefits from a Peace Treaty." "Once the ROK becomes a
signatory, Koreans in Japan as citizens of the Allies will
receive and exercise their rights for property and claims. There are almost one
million Koreans in Japan, whose claims for compensation
would amount to a tremendous figure, far beyond what Japan could handle."(7) As a result,
the Peace Treaty stipulated only the recognition of the independence of Korea and Japan's renunciation of territorial
rights. Thus, Korea and Japan were left to negotiate bilaterally
in order "to overcome the past."
The bilateral negotiation between the ROK and Japan took 13 years to reach a conclusion.
A main reason for lingering on so long was that Japanese officials in charge of
the negotiation were still caught in the imperialist mentality from their
colonial past. "Overcoming the past" was set aside and delayed
because of the cold war. In l965 the negotiation reached a conclusion which was
still affected by the logic of the cold war. Because of that the issue of
"overcoming the past" was blurred and the legal implications of Japan's colonial rule are still debated
to this day. The movement for the North-South unification of the Korean
peninsula has been gathering momentum and the normalization of relations
between Japan and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is now on our agenda. Considering
this reality both the Japanese government and people have to tackle the
challenge of transcending the residue of imperialist mentality in dealing with
"overcoming the past."
Notes:
(1)
Yoshimi Yoshiaki、Comfort Women：Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military During World War Ⅱ.（translated by Suzanne O`brien．2000，Columbia University Press）, p．154．
(2) Army Superintendent General for Education, NITTUSHIJIHEN NO KYOUKUN（Lessons from Sino-Japanese War）（Vol２，1938）, cited from Yoshida Yutaka, NIHON NO GUNTAI―HEISHITATI NO KINDAISHI（Japanese Army―Soldier’s Modern history）, （Iwanami Shinsyo，2003），ｐ．214．
(3) Kasahara Tokushi, NANKINDAIGYAKUSATU NO REKISHIHAIKEI (Historical Background of Nanking Massacre) , in“Syuukan kinyoubi”No．208．
(4) Hujii Tadatoshi , HEITACHI NO SENSO―TEGAMI・NITTUKI・TAIKENNKI WO YOMITOKU (War for Soldiers：Analysis and Interpretation of their Letters，Diaries and Memoirs) , (ASAHI SENSYO，2000), pp．128－9．
(5） In his essay discussing the historical context which led to the cruel treatment of British POWs，Yoichi Kibata puts stress on two aspects：Japan’s attitude to international law；and racial factors in Japan's international behavior． Philip Towle，Margaret Kosuge and Yoichi Kibata（ed．）, Japanese Prisoners of War , (Hambledon and London，2000), pp．135－148．
(6） Huryo Jyohokyoku, HURYO TORIATUKAI NO KIROKU（Treatment Record of POWs）．
(7）
ASAHI SHINBUN，August 22，2000．
- End -