The following is from an article by Masamune Wada, a member of the House of Councilors, published by Hanada Plus.
The first answer in the history of the Diet! Foreign Minister Hayashi says, "There is no document within the ministry that serves as the basis for the Nanjing Incident."
"The Japanese government cannot deny that noncombatants were killed after the Japanese army entered Nanjing." When I asked him about the basis for this view, he answered for the first time in the history of the Diet.
table of contents
● Is there a document that serves as the basis for the statements made by the government as a whole?
● Close resemblance to the Kono statement on the comfort women issue
● Some statements in the Murayama Statement were written without basis.
● "If you can't define it, you should delete it."
Is there a document that serves as the basis for the statement by the government as a whole?
At a House of Councilors Accounts Committee session last week, when I asked about the grounds for the Japanese government's views on the Battle of Nanking, I received an answer for the first time in the history of the Diet.
Documents that serve as the basis for the government's statement on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, etc., that "the Japanese government cannot deny that noncombatants were killed after the Japanese army entered Nanjing." Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi replied, "I cannot confirm the one created by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs."
The issue of the government's view on the Battle of Nanjing came to light when Kenichi ARA, a researcher on modern and contemporary history, asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to release the documents on which it was based last March and received a response January of this year stating that it had decided not to disclose the papers because it could not confirm the existence of the relevant documents.
When Mr. ARA asked me if it was possible to correct a statement on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website that had no basis, I began communicating the facts with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated that there was no document within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that could serve as the basis for the statement, which was officially confirmed during the parliamentary questioning this time.
In this deliberation, after obtaining an answer as to whether or not the document exists within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I asked the government as a whole whether any papers would serve as the basis for the statements. But not only did he answer, "No," for some reason, Minister of Foreign Affairs Hayashi also responded to the question, which I planned for the next question, "Does the entire government have documents that serve as the basis for the statements?"
The response was, "The description on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, which you just pointed out, is the government's response to the questionnaire decided by the Cabinet on April 24, 2007. However, the recognition shown in the same answer is a comprehensive judgment based on the testimonies of those involved and various materials related to the incident.
Regarding this document, we have not been able to confirm that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs created it, but as a document created by a government agency, it was published in 1975 by the Defense Research Institute, War History Office. I am aware that there is a corresponding description in the first volume of the War History Series: Chinese Incident Army Operation."
Close resemblance to the Kono statement on the comfort women issue
However, the "War History Series: Chinese Incident Army Operation" in this answer was compiled in 1975, 30 years after the end of the war. I ordered all of them from the National Diet Library and read them all. Still, I could not find a clear description from these materials that the Japanese military intentionally killed civilians.
In addition, the "applicable description" in the Foreign Minister's answer seems to be the description that "innocent residents were killed or injured," but this may be written in the context of the Japanese military intentionally killing residents. Instead, it is written on the premise that "noncombatants and residents died as collateral damage." Furthermore, in this "War History Series: Chinese Incident Army Operation," it is clearly stated that "Most of the corpses near Nanjing were the result of combat actions, and it is difficult to say that it was a premeditated and systematic massacre."
What can be said from these is that the government's view on the Battle of Nanking is an "official view" based on things that cannot be confirmed in government-owned documents and are very similar to the statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono on the comfort women issue.
The description on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website is based on the description of the government's reply to the questionnaire in 2007, "It cannot be denied that noncombatants were killed after the former Japanese army entered Nanjing in 1937." However, what became clear through this question-and-answer session was that no document in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs served as the basis for this and that even in the "War History Series: China Incident Army Operation," which is the basis for this, there was no intentional non-combat. Therefore, the killing of members and residents is not specified.
Part of the Murayama Statement was also written without basis.
The government's position and the description on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website should be corrected based on the government-owned documents that are currently known.
If a document clearly describing the killing of noncombatants and civilians was found, I think it would be written accordingly, but currently, there is no such document.
So how do we describe it?
Regarding the descriptions in the "Senshi Sosho: Chinese Incident Army Operation," I have examined various reference materials, but there are descriptions that residents were involved in the battle and died, and I am aware that it is a fact.
The content described in official government documents should be revised this way.
The statement on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, "It cannot be denied that noncombatants were killed,'' states that "the Japanese government affirmed the theory that the Japanese military intentionally killed and massacred civilians.'' It is based on. Instead of "killing noncombatants," shouldn't it be based on government documents that "they were involved and killed?"
In the past, I asked the government about the definitions of "colonial rule" and "aggression" in the Murayama Statement in the 2015 Diet Q&A session and written questionnaires.
The government responded, "There are various discussions about the definition of colonial rule and aggression, and it is difficult to answer your question."
It could not define colonial rule or invasion and answer whether Japan had done so.
In other words, it became clear that the descriptions of "colonial rule" and "aggression" in the Murayama Statement were written without basis.
"If it cannot be defined, it should be deleted."
In response to this, on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website at that time, "Historical Issues Q&A," "Q1 What kind of historical perception does the Japanese government have regarding the last war?" Regarding using the phrase "colonial rule and aggression," I asked the government in April 2015 in a questionnaire that "if it cannot be defined, it should be deleted."
The government's written response was that it had "no intention of deleting it." Subsequently, following Prime Minister Abe's statement in August on the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, the words "invasion" and "colonial rule" were deleted from the "Historical Issues Q&A" on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, and "Nanjing Massacre" was replaced with "Nanjing Incident.
In this way, there have been cases in the past where the government clarified what could not be said and corrected the description based on documents held by the government.
China is using the Battle of Nanking to propagandize that there was a massacre.
The Japanese government should not formulate government views based on ambiguous arguments but should develop statements and descriptions based on content with clear grounds.
Otherwise, even if it is different from historical facts, the misconception that it is a fact recognized by the Japanese government will spread.
Correcting this is important for our predecessors' honor and the children who will live in the future.
I will continue to urge the government to make it an official opinion with evidence, and I would like to disseminate solid historical facts domestically and internationally.
Masamune Wada
https://hanada-plus.jp/articles/681
Born in Tokyo in 1974, he graduated from the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Law, Keio University (history of Japanese Diplomacy). In 1997, he joined NHK as an announcer. After working at the Niigata, Obihiro, and Osaka stations, he started working at the Sendai station in July 2009. He is involved in the reporting and coverage of the Great East Japan Earthquake, and 2013, he was elected for the first time in the Miyagi constituency in the 23rd House of Councilors election. In 2019, he was re-elected to the National Proportional District and is currently Vice Chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party Diet Affairs Committee of the House of Councillors.
FUKUDA MAKOTO 【DOJ
No.0001】