NBRのJapan-US discussionの投稿2つを貼り付けます。
3/4/2013 4:40:00 PM
http://nbrforums.nbr.org/foraui/message.aspx?LID=5&pg=1&MID=43592
A number of years ago we had a very extensive discussion of all these issues in the Forum, and I would hate to go back and repeat it all! I found it useful at the time to help sharpen my thinking on this topic, which eventually turned into a book - War, Guilt and World Politics:
The legacy of world War II in Europe and Asia - if I may be so crass as to engage in some self promotion.
The basic problem is, what is the criteria that we should use to determine how countries should or should not go about dealing with their past? Some countries have made some effort to do so - and in this respect Germany has gone further than any other. Germany has paid over $100 billion in compensation to various victims groups.
German leaders have offered repeatedly strongly worded apologies for the crimes that were committed during the period of the Third Reich. Berlin - where I am presently - has an impressive network of monuments and museums dealing with the issue. The topic is well covered in the educational system (although not uniformly so).
And German policies across a broad spectrum of issues continues to be strongly affected by memory of the Nazi past - including law enforcement, immigration policy, defense and national security, and of course relations with Israel.
is it enough? Impossible to say. Who can put a price tag on genocide? What is the statute of limitations on mass murder? Suffice to say, the Germans have done an awful lot. I am only astonished at how long the past continues to influence the present, 68 years after the end of the war.
Few other countries come even close to the Germany in this regard - the Germans have set the gold standard for guilt. Austria has, albeit belatedly. The United States has tried to come to terms with the legacies of slavery and institutionalized racism toward African Americans and other minorities, although the issue of compensation ("40 acres and a mule") has still never really been addressed.
The looming debate over the future of affirmative action may reopen some of these old wounds. Australia continues to be wracked by an intense and emotional debate over its treatment of the indigenous Australian people (formerly referred to as the aborigines). And the list could be extended.
Other countries continue to refuse to deal with the dark sides of their past. As Yen-Ling Chang quite correctly pointed out, the problem of the Maoist past has been largely put off in China - instead Deng called on the generation that went through the cultural revolution to "swallow bitterness" and be satisfied with a de facto repudiation of Maoist economic policies.
Russia under Vladimir Putin has effectively back pedaled from confronting the legacy of Stalinism. and Japanese of all political persuasions - left and right - very trenchantly point out that the US has avoided apologizing for the atomic bombings and that Western nations in general have failed to apologize and offer compensation for their colonialization of much of the world, including Asia.
A few years ago, Haiti presented a bill to France for 17 billion euros（リンク省略), with effectively no response, despite France's apparently pioneering use of gas chambers to kill as many as 100,000 rebellious former slaves （リンク省略）.
What is the standard that we should use to condemn or tolerate the way in which countries deal with the past - especially when the past is murky? I am not denying that Imperial Japan was guilty of many crimes.
The san ko sakusen in North China killed millions. Unit 732 (※731) and other bacteriological warfare centers rivaled Auschwitz in their brutality, if not scale. The treatment of the comfort women was undoubtedly an atrocity. On humanitarian grounds alone, something should be done for the surviving victims.
However, who should be compensated, how much and under what conditions, is, as always a difficult question. Historians can help point the way, but the many historians who have valiantly struggled with these issues and to whom I have talked to on this topic - including people like Mitani Hiroshi, Daqing Yang, and Alexis Dudden - all point out that the facts are complex, the documentary record is incomplete and trying to build a consensus, even without the terrible political and social pressures that have afflicted Sino-Japanese and Sino-Korean efforts in this regard, is very difficult.
I should mention that Kitaoka Shinichi, who I have also talked to about this, is a trained historian and far more open to the topic of Japanese guilt than he often has been made out to be.
In the end, it is not possible to answer that question on philosophical or factual historical grounds. Nor can it be answered by reference to some "international regime on historical justice," since such a regime - insofar as it exists - is inchoate and inconsistent.
It can only be dealt with on pragmatic grounds. I.e., what on practical grounds, can Japan do, and what are the costs and benefits of it doing so or not doing so. After trying to tackle these issues for something like 20 years, both in Japan and abroad, I have found that this is a far better starting point for constructive discussions than floundering around in a morass of historical detail or engaging in angry finger pointing.
Thomas U. Berger
Department of International Relations
Boston University
Stiftung Wissenshaft und Politik, Berlin
3/7/2013 11:10:00 AM
http://nbrforums.nbr.org/foraui/message.aspx?LID=5&MID=43620
I didn't mean to pour entirely cold water on Ronald Dore's idea of a common history project, though my March 6 post ended up doing so. I only doubt the efficacy of such a project for the immediate purpose of rescuing Japan from its own self-created disability. And to enlarge on Peter Duus' reservations about focusing on such matters as the Nanjing massacre, I suspect that even singling out the entire period of the Japanese imperial chapter dating back to the Meiji Restoration is problematical because the feelings are raw on all sides.
Instead, I suggest that focus on this troublesome period be subsumed under a project that takes in the whole of the joint history of China-Korea-Japan as each people and country gradually awoke to the existence of the others, which is also to say, as the self-awareness and creation of each grew in proportion as each became more aware of the others and was affected by them (cf. George Herbert Mead), followed by their coming together in the formation of what became the East Asian Sinic world, such as it was, and then for this world to be superseded by Japan's and also Korea's assertion and creation of an identity increasingly more independent of that world.
In the context of the last transformation we can see Japan from the sakoku period through the fall of the Tokugawa shogunate and then from 1868 to 1945 as having misconceived its assertion of that independence from one extreme to the other so as to suggest alternative ways that are neither pure isolation nor so destructive of others as in the second, in fact, that are more supportive of the others' growth as well: hence the prospect of a more actively cooperative future and a new East Asian solidarity.
Japan's post-1968 (※1868) self-assertion was precipitated by the Black Ships. The vision of those ships in Tokyo Bay was not so traumatic for Japan as the Opium Wars were for China. But both experiences marked the decisive intrusion of the West into Asian consciousness, so that such a consideration of East Asian history naturally points to an even wider study encompassing the history of East and West going back to the medieval long-distance traders (witness the recent return of six Kaifeng Jews to Israel --リンク省略 ) and further back to such interactions as may have taken place between the Roman Empire and China, and the mutual awareness or unawareness between the Hellenic world and China, about all of which I know nothing.
In any case, you get the idea: the rippling expansion of such a history project eventually to encompass world history. That history should embrace the relationship between the ancient Middle East and ancient China, between the Middle East, Europe and India, and between India and China, including the India-Southeast Asia-China triadic relationship, etc.
Such a history project would naturally welcome participants from any and all parts of the world. It would also lead the way to a concrescence of the European-centric history of the world that dominates the Western historical consciousness with the Asian-centric history that dominates the Asian mentality in time to accompany as well as energize the gradual and I hope orderly emergence of a new world order. Sub-Sahara African history, Latin American history, etc. can then be woven into this tapestry as well.
A properly conceived plan for such a project mapped out for fifty years, say, should be able to attract initial funding as well as continuing funding, depending on successful progress, from all kinds of sources. If Mr. Dore and Mr. Duus as well as any others want to initiate the creation of such a plan, I am game to pitch in my two cents.
Yen-Ling Chang
「大量殺戮や戦争の蛮行について被害金額はつけられないし、どんなに加害国が反省をしようと加害国側が謝罪のリミットを設けられない」とつくづく思います。
そして、（これは現在の安倍政権が戦争犯罪に対して「もう充分謝った」「従軍慰安婦はなかった」と言っていることを正当化するものではないですが、）それを非難をしている国々も自国のダークサイドを封印してきた事実もあり、そうした国々が日本を非難するのは、本当は変な話だと思います。
そもそも歴史とは単純なものではないのは確かですので、日中韓の共同歴史研究という枠組みではなく、各国の研究家が集う世界レベルの歴史研究機関があったらよいな、と思います。
ところで蛇足でですが、従軍慰安婦の話を少し。
従軍慰安婦を日本政府が「なかった」と言い切ることに、私は大きな疑問があります。
「強制連行」については、インドネシアのオランダ人女性の従軍慰安婦のように、軍が強制連行したケースもあったと思います。
また、あの手この手で騙されて従軍慰安婦となった人も少なくなかったでしょう。
（私の90代の友人は父親の仕事の関係で朝鮮に住んでいました。彼女から、戦中、朝鮮から満鉄に勤める兄のところに向かうべき一人旅をしていたとき、電車内で彼女の声をかけにきた朝鮮人の話を聞いたことがあります。
彼女は、「従軍慰安婦になれそうな若い女性を探していたんでしょう。うまいこと言ってしつこくて。私が「満鉄で働く兄に会いに行く」と言ったら逃げていったから助かった。」というようなことを言っていました。）
ともかく、日本政府や軍が直接強制連行をしなかったとしても、お金を使うなり、韓国の役人に圧力をかけて集めさせたことは事実ではないでしょうか。
そして、それが「現地での性犯罪を減らすため」と言う目的があったとしても、そうした買春（お金を払ったんでしょうか？）を奨励してきたこと、一度その慰安所につれてこられた人が人間として扱われなかったのは確かです。なので、彼女たちには償いをしないというのは、「文明的な国」がすることとは思えません。
安倍首相は当事国や他の国々から非難されているより、きちんと非を認めた上で、
「従軍慰安婦自体は、朝鮮戦争時もベトナム戦争時もあった。従軍慰安婦自体がなくてもたとえば国連平和維持軍の現地での性犯罪(ボスニアにおいては国連軍の人身売買組織まで）などもあり、それらは大きな問題提議はされなかった。だから、同時にこのときのことも皆で勉強しようではないか！」
とでも言ったら、世界的評価も上がるのではないでしょうか。
（まあ彼は日本を戦争のできる国にしたがっているので、それ以前に問題ありか・・・。）
